EXCHANGE 


REPORT 


of  the 


State  Land  Commis 
sion  of  Arizona 


to  the 


GOVERNOR  OF  THE  STATE 


June  6.  1912,  to  December  1,  1914 


/1I 


^ 


Authority  of  the  Act  of  May  20,  1912 
(Chap.  1,  Title  43,  R.  S.  1913.) 


THF     ARIZO' 


-e  i3Ress 


BOCUMtHfS 


gXPHANbE 


CONTENTS.  ^  I 

Organization  and  duties  ...L.tS..{.\^..    7 

Institutional    Lands    H 

Process   of   securing   title    13 

Land  office  fees  for  selections  15 

Necessity  for  large  withdrawals  16 

Fair   dealing   with   settlers   20 

Selections    by    counties    29-32 

Selections  by  grants  33-36 

Applications  for  withdrawal  and  survey  37 

School  Lands  38 

Administration    48 

Permits  to  Territorial  lessees  48 

Speculation   in  school  lands  54 

School  land  leases  57 

Sales  of  gravel   60 

School  lands  within  National  Forests  61 

Classification  65 

Acreage  and  value  of  school  lands — Table  VI  67 

Segregation  of  improvements — Table  VII  68 

Status  of  leased  land  at  date  of  Statehood — Table  VIII 69 

Receipts  and  earning  power  by  counties — Table  IX  72-85 

School  land  leases — Table  XI  88 

Salt  River  Valley  School  Lands  89 

Recommendations    108 

School  lands  under  Salt  River  Project — Table  XII  112 

School  lands  under  Tempe  Canal — Table  XIII  113 

University   Lands 114 

History  of  university  grant  114 

Administration    118 

Co-operation  with  Department  of  Agriculture  119 

Timber  sales  120 

Adjustment  of  trespass  claim  121 

University  lands,  receipts  and  earning  power — Table  XV 125 

Sale  of  timber  and  cordwood — Table  XVI  126 

University  land  leases— Table  XVII  126 

University  land  disbursements — Table  XVIII  126 

A  State  Land  Policy 127 

An  inflexible  policy  will  not  do  130 

The    Commission's   plan    133 

Sale  of  State  lands , 138 

Leasing  of  State  lands  140 

Constitutional  limitation  on  grazing  lands  140 

Improvements    141 

Immigration    commissioner    , 142 

Establishment   of   funds    144 

Carey   Act    149 

Proposed  Santa  Fe  Pacific  exchange  151 

Taking  school  or  university  lands  for  use  of  State 157 

Colorado  River  Indian  reservation 158 

Grant  for  payment  of  county  bonds 159 

Rights-of-way  over   State   lands 160 

Protection  of  equities  in  school  lands 162 

State    land    department 163 

Fees    164 

Receipts  from  State  lands 165 

Expenditures   166 


986189 


PERSONNEL 


EX-OFFICIO 

GEO.  W.  P.  HUNT,  Governor Globe,  Arizona 

WILEY  E.  JONES,  Attorney-General    -     Phoenix,  Arizona 
LAMAR  COBB,  State  Engineer    -    -    -    -     Clifton,  Arizona 

APPOINTED  BY  GOVERNOR 
MULFORD  WINSOR,  Chairman    -    .    -    -    Yuma,  Arizona 

CY   BYRNE,    Secretary Phoenix,   Arizona 

WM.  A.  MOODY,  Member Thatcher,  Arizona 

E.  J.  TRIPPEL,  Chief  Clerk 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 


Office  of  the  State  Land  Commission, 

Phoenix,  Arizona.  December  1,  1914. 
Hon.  Geo.  W.  P.  Hunt, 

Governor  of  Arizona. 
Sir: 

The  State  Land  Commission  has  the  honor  to  submit,  in  accord- 
ance with  law,  the  following  report  of  its  labors,  for  your  con- 
sideration and  for  transmittal  to  the  Legislature  ''with  such  recom- 
mendations relating  thereto,  having  for  their  purpose  the  establish- 
ment of  a  permanent  policy  for  handling  the  public  lands  of  the 
State,"  as  may  seem  to  you  wise  and  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
State. 

MULFORD  WINSOR, 
Chairman. 
CY  BYRNE, 

Secretary. 
WM.  A.  MOODY, 

Member. 


Report  of  the  State  Land  Commission 

of  Arizona 


ORGANIZATION  AND  DUTIES. 


The  State  Land  Commission,  designed  to  be.  temporarily,  the 
Land  Department  of  the  State,  comprising  three  members  appointed 
by  the  Governor,  and  the  Governor,  the  Attorney-General  and  the 
State  Engineer  as  members  ex-officio,  was  created  by  the  Act  of  the 
First  Legislature  approved  May  20,  1912  (Chapter  1,  Title  43.  Re- 
vised Statutes  1913),  and  assumed  its  duties  June  4,  1912. 

Its  duties,  as  provided  by  said  Act,  were : 

(a)  To  ascertain  the  character  and  value  of  the  various  bodies 
of  land  constituting  the  public  land  within  the  State,  and  to  recom- 
mend to  the  Governor  such  as  might  be  deemed  desirable  for  selec- 
tion in  satisfaction  of  the  federal  grants  to  the  State,  under  the  Act 
of  June  20,  1910  (36  U.  S.  Stats.,  557). 

(b)  To  personally  examine,  and  classify,  the  school  and  other 
lands  of  the  State,  with. a  view  to  aiding  the  Legislature  in  the  de- 
termination of  a  State  land  policy. 

(c)  To  determine  the  character  and  value  of  improvements  on 
school  and  university  lands  held  under  lease  prior  to  Arizona  *s  ad- 
mission as  a  State,  for  the  purpose  of  affording  the  Legislature  the 
information  essential  to  the  formation  of  a  method  "for  the  equit- 
able adjustment  of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee,  residing  on 
any  of  said  land,  and  of  the  State." 

(d)  To  grant  permits  for  the  continued  occupancy  of  school 
and  university  lands  held  under  lease  prior  to  Statehood,  with  a  view 
to  maintaining  undisturbed  the  status  of  such  lands  and  preventing 
impairment  of  the  rights  or  property  of  the  lessees  and  of  the  State 


8         REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

until  provision  might  be  made  for  the  equitable  adjustment  of  such 
rights. 

These  duties  were  added  to,  and  the  powers  of  the  Commission 
broadened,  by  subsequent  legislation. 

The  Act  approved  May  17,  1913  (Paragraph  4567,  Chapter  1, 
Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913),  in  addition  to  elaborating  upon  the 
law  relating  to  permits  for  the  occupancy  of  school  and  university 
lands  held  under  lease  prior  to  Statehood,  empowered  the  Commis- 
sion, tp  lease /' g^p-y  jState  land  not  heretofore  leased,  or  the  adminis- 
trsktien  of. wtifeVhasnot  been  otherwise  provided  by  law." 

J  "Tji^^Aiyt'ajppr^  17,  1913,  (Paragraphs  4570-73,  Chapter 

1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913),  conferred  upon  the  Commission 
the  ''charge  of  all  lands  owned  by  the  State,  except  such  as  are 
under  the  specific  use  and  control  of  State  institutions;'*  the  power 
to  prosecute  actions  necessary  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  State, 
and  to  defend  actions  brougM  against  the  State;  to  prevent  tres- 
pass; to  grant  rights-of-way  for  railroads,  canals,  reservoirs,  etc., 
and  to  relinquish  school  lands  within  National  Forests  settled  upon 
prior  to  Statehood  and  prior  to  survey  with  a  view  to  public  land 
entry. 

The  Act  approved  May  17,  1913  (Chapter  2,  Title  43,  Revised 
Statutes  1913),  empowered  the  Commission  to  adjust  the  rights  of 
lessees  owning  improvements  on  school  or  university  lands  * '  desired 
for  the  use  of  any  department  of  the  State  government  or  of  a  State 
institution. " 

The  Act  approved  April  11,  1913  (Chapter  3,  Title  43,  Revised 
Statutes  1913),  authorized  the  Commission  "to  care  for,  sell,  or  oth- 
erwise administer,  the  timber  and  timber  products  upon  the  public 
lands  of  the  State." 

The  Act  of  May  16,  1913  (Chapter  4,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes 
1913),  authorized  the  Commission  to  sell  or  lease  the  lands  secured 
under  the  one  million-acre  grant,  by  the  Act  of  June  20,  1910  (36 
U.  S.  Stats.,  557),  ''for  the  payment  of  the  bonds  and  accrued  in- 
terest thereon  issued  by  Maricopa,  Pima,  Yavapai  and  Coconino 
counties." 

The  Act  approved  May  17,  1913  (Chapter  8,  Title  43,  Revised  Stat- 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  9 

utes  1913),  imposed  upon  the  Commission  ''the  selection,  manage- 
ment and  disposal"  of  desert  lands  to  be  reclaimed  under  the  provis- 
ions of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  August  18,  1894,  and  the  Acts 
amendatory  and  supplementary  thereto,  kno^vn  as  the  Carey  Land 
Acts. 

Subjoined  to  these  duties,  of  course,  was  the  equally  important 
one  of  establishing  the  basic  records  of  the  State  Land  Department, 
without  which  the  requirements  of  the  law  could  not  be  effectively 
complied  with,  the  land  business  of  the  State  systematically,  accu- 
rately and  economically  handled,  or  the  data  desired  by  the  Legisla- 
ture satisfactorily  compiled. 

METHODS. 

Though  the  results  of  the  Commission's  performance  of  its 
various  duties  and  attendant  activities  will  be  set  forth  and  dis- 
cussed separately,  under  appropriate  captions,  the  logical,  systematic 
and  economical  method  of  performing  them,  in  almost  every  instance, 
involved  the  joining  of  labors.  The  basic  records  of  the  office  were 
so  designed  and  formulated  that  practically  any  character  of  infor- 
mation regarding  the  lands  of  the  State,  whether  under  the  owner- 
ship of  the  State  or  of  others,  or  merely  public  lands,  reserved  or 
unreserved,  may,  when  the  records  are  finally  completed,  be  derived 
therefrom ;  while  in  the  performance  of  the  field  work  upon  which 
the  records  relating,  to  the  physical  characteristics  of  the  lands  are 
based,  all  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  the  Commission  by  law,  as  well 
as  the  probable  future  requirements  of  the  State  Land  Department, 
as  experience  and  growth  will  develop  them,  were  constantly  borne 
in  mind.  Thus,  instead  of  devoting  a  trip  in  the  field  exclusively 
to  one  purpose,  such  as  the  appraisement  of  improvements  on  school 
lands  under  lease  prior  to  Statehood,  or  the  examination  of  public 
lands  with  a  view  to  recommendation  for  selection,  advantage  was 
generally  taken  of  the  opportunity  to  accomplish  not  only  both 
of  these  purposes  but  at  the  same  time  many  others  relating  to  the 
classification  and  administration  of  the  lands  and  their  products  and 
the  accumulation  of  general  information  respecting  the  various 
sections.  In  addition  to  the  data  thus  secured  many  photographs 
were  taken,  and  form  an  interesting  and  valuable  part  of  the  records 
of  the  Commission. 


10  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

In  the  interest  of  economy,  and  pending  the  establishment,  in 
permanent  form,  of  a  State  Land  Department,  the  books  and  records 
of  the  Commission  are  more  or  less  temporary  and  unsubstantial  in 
character,  but  the  information  they  contain  is  susceptible  of  ready 
translation  into  permanent  records,  in  the  selection  of  the  form  of 
which  the  experience  already  gained  will  be  of  great  value. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  |l 


INSTITUTIONAL   LANDS 


The  Act  of  Congress  approved  June  20.  1910  (36  U.  S.  Stats., 
557),  commonly  known  as  the  Enabling  Act,  granted  to  the  State  of 
Arizona,  to  be  selected  from  the  "surveyed,  unreserved,  unappro- 
priated and  non-mineral  public  lands  of  the  United  States  within  the 
limits  of  said  State,"  2,350,000  acres,  for  the  foHowing  purposes: 

For  university  purposes  200,000  acres 

For  legislative,       executive      and     judicial     public 

buildings    100,000 

For    penitentiaries   100,000 

For   insane   asylums    100,000 

For    school    and    asylums  for  the  deaf,  dumb  and 

<    the   blind   100,000 

For  miners'  hospitals  for  disabled  miners  50,000 

For  normal  schools   200,000 

For  State       charitable,       penal     and     reformatory 

institutions    100,000 

For  agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges 150,000 

For  school  of  mines  150,000 

For  military  institutes  100,000 

For  the  payment  of  the  bonds  and  accrued 
interest  thereon  issued  by  Maricopa,  Pima, 
Yavapai  and  Coconino  counties 1,000,000 

The  Enabling  Act  provided  that  the  land  should  be  selected 
''by  a  commission  composed  of  the  Governor,  Surveyor-General  or 
other  officer  exercising  the  functions  of  a  Surveyor-General,  and 
the  Attorney-General  of  the  said  State."  For  the  purpose  of  com- 
plying with  this  requirement  of  the  Enabling  Act,  the  chairman  of 
the  State  Land  Commission  was,  by  a  provision  of  Chapter  79  of 
the  Session  Laws  of  1912  (Paragraph  4569,  Chapter  1,  Title  43, 
Revised  Statutes  1913),  clothed  with  the  powers  of  Surveyor-Gen- 
eral. Ostensibly,  therefore,  the  selections  of  lands  granted  by  the 
Act  of  June  20  1910,  are  being  made  by  the  Governor,  the  chair- 
man of  the  State  Land  Commission  and  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
State,  whose  signatures  appear  on  all  selection  lists,  and  all  relin- 
quishments and  protests  connected  therewith.  In  reality,  as  was 
comprehended  by  the  Act  of  the  First  Legislature  creating  the  Com- 


22  REPORT   OP  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

mission  (Paragraphs  4566-4569,  Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Stat- 
utes 1913),  and  as  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  carrying  forward  of 
the  complicated  details  of  the  work,  all  of  the  requirements,  from 
original  examination  of  the  land  to  carrying  the  lists  of  selections 
forward  to  patent,  are  being  performed  by  the  Commission. 

Every  section  of  the  State,  regardless  of  remoteness  or  inaccessi- 
bility, and  whether  surveyed  or  unsurveyed,  has  been  visited,  and 
in  some  necessary  cases,  several  times,  and  it  may  be  said  that  the 
entire  State  has  been  examined  with  more  or  less  thoroughness, 
the  degree  of  care  exercised  being  determined  in  each  case — with  the 
limitations  imposed  by  time  always  in  mind — by  the  needs  of  the 
occasion.  Where  a  superficial  examination  of  a  district  disclosed 
its  undesirability  as  a  whole  no  time  was  wasted,  and  only  such 
examination  was  made  of  unsurveyed  districts  as  was  necessary 
to  determine  the  advisability  or  otherwise  of  their  withdrawal  for 
survey,  but  in  the  case  of  surveyed  districts  containing  lands  desir- 
able for  selection  the  maximum  of  care,  without  entering  into  the 
closely  detailed  examination  for  purposes  of  classification  which 
should  ultimately  be  made,  was  exercised. 

RESULTS  ACHIEVED. 

As  a  result  of  the  Commission's  efforts,  formal  selection  has 
been  made  of  636,661.16  acres,  and  approvals,  or  patents,  have  been 
received  for  289,358.12  acres.  Tables,  showing  the  counties  in  which 
the  selections  fall,  and  the  g;rants  to  which  they  were  applied,  are 
shown  on  pages  29-36     (See  Tables  I  and  II). 

In  addition,  the  Commission's  applications  for  withdrawals  for 
survey  and  selection,  which  when  approved  give  the  State  a  prefer- 
ence right  to  the  land,  amount  to  3,993,235  acres.  Of  this  amount, 
applications  for  3,694,235  acres  have  been  approved,  so  that  there 
has  in  reality  been  set  aside  for  the  purposes  of  the  State  4,330,896.16 
acres,  while  applications  for  299,000  acres  more  are  pending,  or  a 
total  of  4,629,896.16  acres  for  w^hich  the  Commission  has  initiated 
the  State 's  right. 

A  table  showing  the  counties  in  which  are  located  the  lands 
withdrawn  for  survey  and  selection  is  shown  on  page  37  (Table 
III),  as  also  is  a  recapitulation,  by  counties,  of  the  lands  selected 
and  those  withdrawn  for  selection  (Table  IV). 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  13 

PROCESS  OF  SECURING  TITLE. 

That  the  securing  of  title  to  the  institutional  lands  granted  to 
the  State  involves  a  vast  amount  of  detail,  the  utmost  of  attention 
to  each  of  many  thousands  of  items,  and  the  closest  observance  of  a 
departmental  routine  which  not  infrequently  becomes  exceedingly 
tedious,  appears  to  be  but  imperfectly  known  to  many  people,  if  oc- 
casional comments  in  State  publications  on  the  slowness  with  which 
patents  are  being  secured  may  be  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  the 
general  public's  lack  of  knowledge.  A  brief  recital  of  the  prescrib- 
ed land  office  procedure  may  prove  somewhat  informative,  and 
possibly  will  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  course  which 
must  invariably  be  followed  before  the  b^tate  may  have  the  authority 
or  right  to  contract  away  the  title,  by  sale  or  lease,  of  any  part  of 
its  institutional  lands. 

Following,  the  filing  of  selection  lists  containing  not  to  exceed 
6400  acres  each,  the  various  tracts  included  therein  being  described 
by  legal  subdivisions,  and  the  notation  of  the  same  on  the  records 
of  the  local  land  office,  the  lists  are  forwarded,  in  the  event  that  no 
conflicts  appear,  to  the  General  Land  Office  in  Washington,  where 
they  go  through  a  course  of  checking  and  examination  by  various 
office  divisions.  Without  taking  into  account  the  actual  inspection 
of  and  report  upon  the  land  which  must  be  made  by  the  Field  Divis- 
ion of  the  General  Land  Office,  this  process  at  the  best  requires 
from  eight  months  to  a  year  before  the  approval  of  the  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office  may  be  had.  Approval  is  expedited,  of 
course,  in  the  case  of  lists  that  are  ''clear" — that  is,  where,  after 
thorough  investigation,  it  is  found  that  all  of  the  requirements  of 
the  law  and  of  the  General  Land  Office  regulations  have  been  com- 
plied with,  and  there  is  no  bar  to  the  State 's  selection  of  any  of  the 
tracts  described  in  a  list,  and  no  contests  or  protests  requiring  adju 
dication  appear  to  affect  any  portion  of  the  list. 

In  the  meantime  the  State  is  required,  within  a  certain  specified 
time,  to  publish,  in  the  counties  where  they  are  situate,  notices  of 
the  lands  selected,  and  provide  the  General  Land  Office  with  affi- 
davits of  such  publication,  which  notices  are  subjected  to  the  utmost 
scrutiny.  If  it  should  develop,  as  not  infrequently  happens  despite 
the  great  care  exercised,  that  the  most  minute  and  apparently  in- 
significant error  has  crept  into  a  notice,  affecting  the  smallest  legal 


14  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

subdivision,  the  list  is  held  up  pending  a  republication.  If  an  error 
has  occurred  in  the  affidavit  the  list  is  suspended  pending  correc- 
tion. If  a  protest  or  contest,  based  upon  legal  grounds,  appears 
from  any  source,  against  the  State's  selection  of  any  tract  contained 
in  a  list,  final  action  upon  the  list  must  await  the  adjustment  there- 
of. In  all  such  cases  of  merit,  when  brought  directly  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Commission,  the  tracts  affected  are  relinquished,  thereby 
obviating  delay  in  the  General  Land  Office,  but  frequently  the 
Commission  receives  no  notice  of  contests  or  protests  until  long 
afterward,  as  is  also  often  true  when  other  and  comparatively  minor 
causes  are  acting  as  a  bar  to  prompt  approval.  The  causes  w^hich 
may  operate  to  delay  or  suspend  the  approval  of  a  list  are  so  numer- 
ous, and  many  of  them  apparently  so  trifling,  that  an  attempt  to 
describe  them  all  would  be  impractical  if  not  impossible.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  outline  given  will  be  sufficient  to  afford  an  idea  of  the 
tedious  process — necessary  to  the  careful,  systematic  transaction  of 
the  very  extensive  land  business  of  the  federal  government — which 
State  selections  must  undergo  prior  to  title  vesting  in  the  State. 


QUESTION  OF  A  WASHINGTON  REPRESENTATIVE. 

In  some  cases  this  work  could  be  advanced  by  the  employment  of 
a  Washington  attorney,  whet  would  at  frequent  intervals  ascertain 
the  status  of  the  State's  selection  lists,  learn  the  causes  preventing 
their  prompt  approval  and  proceed  with  an  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  facts  to  remove  such  causes,  or  to  advise  the  Commission  of  the 
requirements.  The  practical  utility  of  having  representation  in 
Washington  was  shown  to  the  Commission  by  a  visit  of  its  chairman, 
on  a  number  of  important  matters  connected  wdth  the  Commission's 
duties,  in  June,  1913.  This  visit,  though  of  short  duration,  resulted 
in  the  expediting  of  the  approval  of  a  number  of  lists,  and  afforded 
an  insight  into  General  Land  Office  procedure  clearly  demonstrative 
of  the  practicality  of  having,  a  representative  there  continuously  or 
frequently.  That  the  plan  has  heretofore  proved  of  value,  also,  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  practically  all  of  the  public  land  States  have, 
as  a  part  of  the  process  of  securing  title  to  the  lands  granted  them, 
engaged  Washington  legal  representation. 


REPORT   OP  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  15 

This  subject  was  carefully  considered  by  the  Commission,  in  its 
desire  to  do  that  which  would  most  certainly  promote  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  State,  and  the  conclusion  arrived  at,  that  practical 
as  the  procedure  undoubtedly  would  be,  the  beneficial  results  to  be 
obtained  would  not  be  commensurate  with  the  expense  it  would  in- 
volve, and  the  Commission  has  therefore,  with  such  assistance  as 
the  State's  legal  department  and  Arizona's  representatives  in  Con- 
ii:ress  might  render,  endeavored  to  fulfill  all  requirements  of  the 
situation. 


LAND  OFFICE  FEES  FOR  SELECTIONS. 

The  State  may  be  congratulated  upon  the  satisfactory  deter- 
mination of  the  Commission's  contention  with  respect  to  the  fees  to 
be  paid  to  the  Register  and  Receiver  of  the  local  land  office  for  filing 
State  selections,  resulting  in  a  saving  of  approximately  $15,000  in 
the  item  of  institutional  lands  and  probably  as  much  more  in  the 
item  of  indemnity  school  lands. 

With  the  first  selection  list  filed  in  1912,  one  dollar  for  each 
160-acre  tract  was  submitted  as  the  correct  filing  fee.  The  Com- 
mission's view  was  disputed  by  the  Register  and  Receiver,  who  held 
that  the  fee  should  be  one  dollar  each  for  the  Register  and  Receiver, 
and  the  list,  together  with  all  subsequent  lists  filed  prior  to  a  final 
decision  on  the  point,  was  suspended.  The  Register  and  Receiver 
held  that  the  fee  of  a  dollar  to  each  of  the  local  officials,  for  each 
160-acre  tract,  was  fixed  by  a  general  statute  relating  to  land  of- 
fice fees,  which  had  been  observed  by  all  of  the  public  land  States, 
and  they  interpreted  as  confirmatory  the  provision  of  the  Arizona 
Enabling  Act  on  the  subject.  In  this  they  were  sustained  by  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office.  The  Commission,  through 
the  Attorney-General,  contended,  however,  that  the  interpretation 
placed  upon  the  Arizona  Enabling  Act  was  erroneous ;  that  the  spec- 
ial law  applying  to  Arizona's  selection  of  lands  superceded  the  gen- 
eral law,  and  that  it  prescribed  the  payment  of  one  dollar  only,  for 
each  160  acres,  to  the  Register  and  Receiver.  Upon  appeal  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  the  Commission's  contention  was  sustain- 
ed. 


IQ  REPORT   OP  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

NECESSITY  FOR  LARGE  WITHDRAWALS. 

It  will  be  noted — a  circumstance  which  has  brought  forth  criti- 
cisms from  parties  whose  personal  interests  are  antagonistic  to 
State  selections — that  although  the  total  of  the  institutional  grants 
in. satisfaction  of  which  selections  are  being  made  is  2,350,000  acres, 
an  amount  of  land  which,  when  added  to  the  selections  already  made, 
is  1,980,896.16  acres  in  excess  of  the  total  requirements,  has  been 
withdraw^n  from  settlement.  The  necessity  for  this  apparently  ex- 
cessive withdrawal  may  be  easily  explained. 

In  making  preliminary  examinations  of  unsurveyed  districts 
with  a  view  to  applying  for  withdrawals  for  survey,  it  is  impossible, 
except  at  great  and  useless  expense,  to  determine  the  location  of 
township  lines  with  any  degree  of  accuracy,  and  therefore  the  loca- 
tion of  the  mountainous,  hilly  and  otherwise  undesirable  areas  which 
constitute  some  proportion  of  almost  every  district  is  indefinite. 
The  natural  consequence  is  that  upon  survey  a  portion  of  the  with- 
drawn area  will  be  found  to  be  undesirable  for  purposes  of  State 
selection,  and  of  course  still  more  so  for  the  purposes  of  the  individ- 
ual settler.  An  accurate  estimate  of  the  proportion  of  undesirable 
land  which  will  be  found  to  be  included  in  the  State's  withdrawals 
can  hardly  be  made,  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  will  amount  to 
two-thirds  of  the  whole.  If  the  proportion  should  prove  as  great 
as  this,  it  will  be  seen  that  still  further  withdrawals  will  be  necessary 
to  satisfy  the  institutional  grants. 

Apart  from  the  selection  of  institutional  lands,  it  will  also  be 
necessary  to  select  a  large  amount  of  indemnity  school  lands,  to  re- 
imburse the  common  school  grant  for  such  portions  of  the  place 
lands  granted  for  that  purpose  as  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be 
alienated  by  settlers  prior  to  the  survey  of  the  land  or  prior  to  the 
rights  of  the  State  accruing.  At  the  date  of  this  report,  of  the  1,- 
748,743.09  acres  of  surveyed  school  sections  in  the  State,  168,707.62 
acres  have  been  so  alienated,  and  this  amount,  as  the  public  land 
surveys  go  forward,  will  increase. 

Still  another  circumstance  worthy  of  consideration  in  this 
connection  is  that  a  huge  proportion  of  the  federal  grant  of  four 
sections  in  each  township  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  schools 
falls  within  United  States  reservations.    Some  of  these  school  lands 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  17 

— as,  for  instance,  those  within  National  Forests — yield  important 
revenues,  while  others  may  be  of  such  great  value  as  to  justify 
awaiting  the  elimination  of  the  reservations  in  which  they  fall,  and 
acceptance  of  the  attendant  sacrifice  of  possible  revenue  in  the 
meantime,  in  order  that  title  to  such  highly  valuable  lands  may  fin- 
ally accrue  to  the  State.  But  whatever  might  be  the  result  of  an  ex- 
haustive investigation  of  this  subject — an  investigation  which  by  all 
means  should  be  made — there  is  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  great 
benefits  to  the  State  which  would  be  derived  from  the  relinquish- 
ment of  worthless  school  lands  within  certain  Indian  reservations, 
to  the  amount  of  probably  a  million  and  a  quarter  acres,  and  the 
selection  elsewhere,  under  the  rights  accorded  by  law,  of  a  like 
amount  of  indemnity  lands.  This  subject  will  be  disciissed  in  con- 
nection w^ith  the  question  of  school  lands,  to  which  it  logically  be- 
longs, and  is  injected  here  merely  for  the  purpose  of  summarizing 
the  State's  requirements  of  lands  available  for  selection,  and  to  show 
that  such  requirements  are  riot  limited  to  the  institutional  grants. 
If  the  course  above  suggested  should  be  carried  out,  there  would 
be.  instead  of  2,350,000.  approximately  three  and  three-quarters  or 
four  million  acres  to  select,  thus  necessitating  the  survey  of  probably 
twice  the  amount  of  land  now  withdrawn  for  that  purpose. 


A  MEANS  OF  PREVENTING  WILD-CATTING. 

Realizing  the  situation's  needs,  and  in  the  hope  of  expediting 
selection  of  the  State's  lands,  the  Commission  would  increase  its 
withdrawals  at  the  present  time  were  it  allowed  to  do  so  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  but  that  official,  who,  quite  excusably,  is 
not  entirely  familiar  Avith  Arizona's  peculiar  conditions,  and  pos- 
sessing the  entirely  reasonable  and  public-spirited  fear  that  the' 
withdraw^al  of  government  lands  in  huge  bodies  might  visit  an  in- 
iustice  upon  prospective  settlers  and  work  to  the  retardation  of  the 
State's  development,  placed  a  limit  upon  the  withdrawals  which 
might  be  made  by  the  State. 

The  fears  of  the  Secretary  spring  from  an  altogether  commend- 
able motive.  They  are  as  groundless,  however,  as  certain  objections 
to  State  withdrawals — coming  from  parties  whose  peculiar  and  par- 
ticular business  activities  desire  broad  and  unrestricted  fields  for 


[,«^        REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

their  most  successful  operation — are  clearly  inspired  by  question- 
able and  wholly  selfish  interests. 

Most  of  the  State's  withdrawals,  as  in  the  very  nature  of  Ari- 
zona's unsurveyed  lands  they  necessarily  must  be,  are  of  undevelop- 
ed, undemonstrated  areas — broad  valleys  and  mesas,  beautiful  to 
the  eye  and  possessing,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  wonder- 
ful potentialities — which  by  the  exercise  of  wise  business  judgment 
on  the  part  of  the  State  may  be  transformed  into  scenes  of  agricul- 
tural and  industrial  activity ;  but  they  are  surrounded  by  conditions 
such  as  the  average  settler,  or  even  the  individual  of  considerable 
means,  cannot  profitably  or  successfully  confront,  and  hedged  about 
by  difficulties  which  must  be  overcome  by  combined  rather  than  di- 
vided effort.  The  withdrawal  of  these  areas  really  amounts  to  a 
kindness  to  those  susceptible  seekers  after  free  government  land 
who  constitute  the  prey  of  conscienceless  wild-catters,  rather  than  a 
hardship  upon  them.  The  fact  that  the  exceedingly  reprehensible 
species  of  fraud  known  as  land  "wild-catting" — to  the  wide  exist- 
ence of  which  attention  has  heretofore  been  directed  by  the  Com- 
mission— has  materially  lessened  in  the  past  year,  may  be  fairly 
and  largely  attributed  to  the  restriction,  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
most  accessible  areas  and  those  most  pleasing  to  the  unsophisticated 
eye,  of  the  wild-catter's  tangible  stock  in  trade.  By  "tangible" 
stock  in  trade  is  meant,  of  course,  the  land  upon  w^hich,  for  a  hand- 
some consideration,  the  wild-catter  locates  his  victim,  as  distin- 
guished from  that  other  stock  in  trade  which  includes  a  flexible 
conscience,  an  oily  tongue,  an  assuring  manner  and  a  sufficient 
knowledge  of  the  law  to  keep  out  of  jail.  As  the  Commission  has 
suggested  in  previous  recommendations,  the  wild-catter  should  be 
driven  out  of  Arizona,  by  visiting  his  operations  with  the  law's  con- 
demnation ;  but  it  now  seems  likely  to  the  Commission  that  this 
end  could  be  accomplished  in  no  more  effective  manner  than  by  the 
withdrawal  from  sale  and  settlement  of  all  those  areas,  unsusceptible 
of  successful  development  by  the  individual  home-seeker,  which  serve 
merely  as  a  wild-catter's  ware  and  as  burial  places  for  the  meagre 
funds,  the  energy  and  the  priceless  faith  of  families  eagerly  look- 
ing for  spots  on  the  earth's  surface  which  they  may  call  their  own, 
and  where  they  may  maintain  themselves  in  comfort. 

An  incomparably  greater  injustice  to  prospective  settlers,  and 
an  infinitely  greater  retardation  to  the  State's  development,  than 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  ]9 

could  possibly  be  worked  by  the  withdrawal  of  such  lands  as  are 
here  described,  even  though  such  withdrawals  were  many  times 
their  present  extent,  has  been  effected  by  the  segregation  from  the 
body  of  public  lands,  by  means  of  so-called  scrip,  of  some  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  acres  lying  largely  within  districts  of  know^n  agri- 
cultural value  and  along  the  water  courses  of  the  State.  This  sub- 
ject will  be  dealt  with  in  another  portion  of  this  report. 

LAND  SURVEYS  A  PRESSING  NEED. 

Except  for  occasional  selections  unimportant  in  extent,  the 
formal  selection  of  lands  has  been  interrupted  by  the  exhaustion 
of  surveyed  lands  desirable  for  the  State's  purposes.  The  work  of 
surveying  the  lands  withdrawn  for  the  State  is,  however,  being  vig- 
orously pushed  by  the  United  States  Surveyor-General  for  Arizona, 
whose  constant  manifestation  of  interest  and  continued  co-operation 
with  the  Commission  are  much  appreciated.  Of  the  lands  embraced 
within  approved  applications  for  Avithdrawal,  about  1,700,000  acres 
have  been  surveyed  i^  the  field,  and  await  only  the  approval  of 
the  plats  by  the  General  Land  Office.  Such  approval  will  enable  the 
Commission  to  add  extensively  to  the  selections  already  made. 

The  Commission  gave  full  consideration  to  the  possibility  of 
expediting  the  survey  of  withdraw^n  lands  by  advancing  to  the 
federal  government  the  necessary  funds  therefor,  as  authorized  by 
Paragraph  4574,  Chapter  1,»  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913.  For  a 
number  of  reasons  the  step  was  not  taken.  It  would  have  entailed  an 
added  burden,  temporarily  at  least,  upon  the  taxpayers  of  the 
State;  and  inasmuch  as  a  large  and- exceptionally  efficient  force 
was  being  maintained  in  the  field  by  the  Arizona  apportionment 
of  federal  funds  for  public  land  surveys;  as  additional  competent 
civil  service  engineers  would  have  been  difficult  for  the  Surveyor- 
General  to  secure,  and  as  exceedingly  satisfactory  progress  was 
being  made,  a  resort  to  the  expedient  of  advancing  State  funds 
was  not  deemed  necessary. 

Doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  Arizona  has  in  the  past  been 
regarded  as  a  desert  waste,  impossible  of  reclamation  and  incapable 
of  development,  little  of  its  surface  has  been  surveyed,  and  when 
Statehood  came,  with  its  attendant  grants  of  land,  there  was  no 


20  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

opportunity  to  take  quick  advantage  of  the  Nation's  gift.  The 
choicest  areas — so  far  as  adaptability  for  immediate  use  is  con- 
cerned— were  surveyed,  and  of  these  lands,  as  rapidly  as  the  neces- 
sary examinations  could  be  made  and  to  the  extent  that  it  could 
be  done  without  unreasonable  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of 
settlers  already  on  the  ground,  the  Commission  selected  several 
hundred  thousand  acres,  the  titles  to  which  have  been  secured  or 
are  pending  in  the  General  Land  Office.  Then  came  an  enforced 
lull  in  the  matter  of  selections;  but  simultaneous  with  the  examina- 
tion of  surveyed  lands  for  selection  application  was  made  for  the 
surveys  which  are  now  being  prosecuted. 

The  difficulties  which  have  been  experienced  because  of  the 
scarcity  of  surveyed  lands  may  perhaps  best  be  appreciated  in  the 
light  of  the  statement  that  Arizona  contains  the  lowest  percentage  of 
surveyed  lands  of  any  public  land  State  in  the  Union,  and  the  largest 
amount  of  unsurveyed  land.  With  a  total  land  surface  of  72,838,400 
acres,  49,594,850  acres,  or  more  than  sixty-eight  per  cent,  remained, 
on  June  30,  1914,  unsurveyed.  This  constitutes  a  handicap  which 
only  time  and  the  Surveyor-General  can  remove,  and  in  justice  it 
must  be  said  that  the  Surveyor-General  is  doing  his  share  to  the 
extent  that  the  appropriations  allowed  him  will  permit. 

There  are  a  great  many  reasons,  an  itemization  or  discussion  of 
which  is  not  necessary  at  this  time,  why  the  rapid  survey  of  the 
public  lands  within  the  borders  of  the  State  constitutes  one  of  Ari- 
zona's most  pressing  economic  requirements,  and  a  combined  ef- 
fort should  be  made  to  secure  adequate  appropriations  and  the 
necessary  authorization  to  that  end. 

FAIR  DEALING  WITH  SETTLERS. 

In  the  many  thousands  of  tracts  which  have  been  filed  upon  by 
the  Commission,  it  was  inevitable  that  there  should  be  some  conflicts 
with  settlers,  generally  squatters  upon  the  land  prior  to  its  survey 
who  had  neglected  or  failed,  for  one  reason  or  another,  to  make 
their  filings  within  the  period  provided  by  law.  In  other  instances 
squatters  have  in  ignorance  either  of  the  law  or  of  the  land's  with- 
drawal, gone  upon  unsurveyed  lands  withdrawn  for  survey  and  se- 
lection  by   the   State — perhaps  within   a   few   days   after   its  with- 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  21 

drawal  and  prior  to  the  publication  of  notice  to  that  effect — estab- 
lished themselves  and  invested  considerable  sums  of  money  in  perma- 
nent improvements. 

In  all  such  cases  the  policy  of  the  Commission  has  been  one  of 
liberality  and  sciuare-dealiiig-.  and  wherever  either  the  legal  or 
equitable  rights  were  found,  after  thorough  investigation,  to  be 
with  the  settler,  the  Commission  has  relinquished  the  State's  filing^ 
or  in  the  case  of  unsurvey(Hi  lands,  jiivcn  Mssurancc  that  the  hold- 
ings of  the  squatter  would  be  recognized. 

The  delicacy  of  this  i)hase  of  the  question  of  -land  selections 
will  be  readily  recognized.  While  desiring,  to  invariably  manifest 
that  spirit  of  absolute  fairness  with  its  citizens  or  its  prospective 
citizens  which  a  State  should  always  observe,  it  is  necessary  to 
closely  differentiate  between  cases  deserving  such  treatment  and 
those  in  which  no  equities  lie  with  the  complainant.  If  a  policy 
too  liberal  in  its  application  were  to  be  adopted,  it  would  be  a  very 
short  time  before  lack  of  respect  for  the  State's  rights  would  prevail 
and  its  lands  would  be  widely  occupied  by  squatters  relying  upon 
the  State's  '' liberal  policy"  to  prevent  their  removal.  The  result 
would  be  constant  conflicts,  litigation,  confusion,  dissatisfaction, 
loss  on  the  part  both  of  the  sfiuatters  and  the  State,  and  to  a  great 
extent  the  defeat  of  the  purposes  for  which  the  grants  were  design- 
ed. It  has  been  deemed  wise,  therefore,  to  give  to  each  case  of  con- 
flicting claims  the  most  thorough  investigation  and  careful,  judicial 
consideration,  to  the  end  that  while  justice  is  being  done  and  the 
full  duty  of  the  State  to  the  individual  being  observed,  the  State's 
interests  may  not  be  adversely  affected  by  the  establishment  of  dan- 
gerous precedents. 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  INSTITUTIONAL  LANDS. 

The  Commission's  earliest  reflection,  in  conformity  with  the 
view  held  and  acted  upon  by  the  Legislature,  led  to  the  belief  that 
there  could  be  no  intelligent,  comprehensive,  scientific  consideration 
of  a  policy  for  the  handling  of  the  State's  lands  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  what  those  lands  were,  and  that  a  right  determination  of  a 
question  so  vitally  great  as  the  State  land  question  is  could  not  be 
arrived  at  in  the  absence  of  authentic  information.     The  soundness 


22  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

of  this  view  has  been  impressed  upon  the  Commission  by  its  exper- 
ience and  study  since  the  inauguration  of  its  labors  in  1912,  and  is 
confirmed  by  the  evil  results  which  have  fallen  upon  those  public 
land  States  which  in  the  past  have  acted,  vnthout  reflection,  upon 
the  worn-out  view  that  ''land  is  land,"  and  proceeded  to  apply 
personatl  theories,  based  upon  nothing — unless  it  were,  perchance, 
the  whisperings  of  private  interests — to  a  question  calling  for  the 
deepest  study  and  an  intimate  knowledge  of  all  the  facts. 

This  conviction,  no  less  than  the  law's  direction,  inspired  the 
Commission's  interest  in  the  work  of  classifying  the  lands  thus  far 
selected  in  satisfaction  of  the  institutional  grants,  the  results  of 
yrhich  are  shown  on  pages  27  and  28. 

This  classification  should  by  no  means  be  considered  as  a  final 
or  completed  work.  It  is  not  the  sort  of  classification  essential  to 
the  scientific  administration  of  the  lands  it  comprises,  but  was  de- 
signed to  afford  the  information  upon  which  a  wise  and  adequate 
policy  of  administration  might  be  based.  It  is  not  the  result  of  a 
minute,  detailed,  scientifically  accurate  investigation  such  as  should 
and  will  probably  have  to  precede  the  development  or  the  sane, 
sensible  disposition  of  the  lands,  nor  of  expensive  and  tedious  special 
examinations  as  to  exact  water  depths  and  supply,  but  is  the  result 
of  careful  personal  inspection,  the' well-weighed  consideration  of  all 
essential  facts  and  the  exercise  of  the  Commission's  best  judgment 
as  to  present  utility  and  future  possibilities.  In  the  consideration 
of  important  points  of  doubt,  experts  connected  with  the  State  Agri- 
cultural College  were  frequently  consulted,  and  in  some  instances 
valuable  assistance  in  the  selection  of  lands  was  rendered  by  offic- 
ials of  t^'nt  denartment. 

The  broad  principle  adopted  by  the  Commission  to  guide  it  in 
the  selection  of  lands  was  that  they  should  have  either  a  present  or 
a  prospective  agricultural  value.  This  policy  was  based  upon  two 
grounds  deemed  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  State — first, 
that  the  lands  susceptible  of  cultivation,  or  of  reclamation  by  any 
method,  will  ultimately  be  the  most  valuable ;  second,  that  the  reser- 
vation to  the  State  of  the  title  and  control  of  lands  at  present  fit  only 
for  grazing,  but  possessing  the  elements  of  a  much  higher  degree 
of  economic  usefulness,  spells  the  highest  type  of  true  conservation 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  23 

and  the  insurance  of  steady  and  sane  development — if  not  rapid  de- 
velopment, the  most  rapid  that  can  by  any  means  be  assured.  In 
short,  it  spells 'prevention  of  the  permanent  acquisition  or  control 
by  grazing  interests  of  s^reat  bodies  of  land  capable;  under  a  wise 
State  policy,  of  providing  homes  for  people,  or  by  the  class  of  specu- 
lators who,  having  no  anxiety  for  the  public's  welfare,  are  content 
to  permit  their  cheaply-purchased  holdings  to  lie  idle  until  the  un- 
earned increments  thereof  may  be  collected  by  their  children  or 
their  children's  children,  the  w^hile  a  rapidly  growing  population  and 
the  withholding  of  large  tracts  susceptible  of  development  con- 
stjuitly  ;?ifr;';i>t  thi'  dcinand  and  the  need  for  cultivable  land. 

(-uided  by  this  policy,  even  so-called  desert  lands,  of  limited 
value  in  their  present  state,  but  possessing  the  potentialities  of  high- 
er development  and  economic  usefulness,  have  been  preferred  to  the 
best  grazing  lands  having  no  such  possibilities.  Always  the  best 
lands  procurable,  of  the  types  comprehended  by  the  Commission's 
policy,  have  been  selected.  That  the  total  acreage  secured  to  date  is 
not  entirely  made  up  of  lands  susceptible  of  immediate  utilization  is 
due  to  the  necessity  of  taking  what  there  is,  but  even  if  there  were  a 
sufficiency  of  such  lands,  which,  though  adapted  for  immediate  utiliz- 
ation could  never  be  ranked  high  in  character  or  quality,  it  might 
still  well  be  wondered  if  the  State's  greatest  opportunity  would  not 
lie  in  securing  control  of  the  lands  capable,  under  a  system  of  devel- 
opment, of  maximum  results. 

Reference  to  the  classification  set  forth  on  pages  27  and  28  will 
disclose  the  great  preponderance  of  lands  classified  as  susceptible 
of  reclamation  wholly  or  partially  by  pumping — a  total  of  303,659.75 
acres.  This  is  the  class  which  contains  at  once  the  greatest  possibili- 
ties of  ultimate  development  and  the  maximum  of  uncertainty  as  to 
the  exact  requirements  of  reclamation  and  the  period  of  time  which 
must  elapse  before  improvements  in  pumping  machinery  and  the 
increasing  demand  for  agricultural  products  will  render  such 
reclamation  feasible  and  profitable. 

This  uncertainty  lies  not  in  soil  or  climatic  conditions,  which 
are  invariably  favorable,  but  entirely  in  the  depth  to  and  the  supply 
and  quality  of  water.  Accurate  data  on  this  score  could  not,  in 
many  cases,  be  obtained  by  the  means  at  the  Commission's  disposal, 
though  generally  selections  were  based  upon  reliable  information  of 


24  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

a  practical  character — to  the  extent,  at  least,  of  justifying  the  ex- 
pectation of  ultimate  reclamation.  The  lands  susceptible  of  reclama- 
tion by  pumping  should,  for  a  more  thorougji  understanding  of  the 
situation,  be  divided  into  those  which  might  be  successfully  reclaim- 
ed at  the  present  time  and  those  the  development  of  which,  by  reason 
of  various  conditions,  will  have  to  wait  for  different  and  indefinite 
periods.  Though  morally  confident  as  to  certain  areas  which  might 
be  classified  as  susceptible  of  immediate  reclamation,  the  Commis- 
sion does  not  feel  justified,  in  the  absence  of  express  authority  to 
conduct  examinations  of  the  required  thoroughness,  and  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  at  best  many  tracts  would  be  omitted  which  should 
properly  be  so  classified,  in  attempting  such  a  segregation.  It  is 
deemed  sufficient  that  the  Commission  is  able  to  assert,  with  confi- 
dence, that  there  are  considerable  bodies  of  land  included  in  the 
State  selections  susceptible  at  the  present  time  of  successful  and 
profitable  reclamation  by  the  pumping  method.  They  comprise  a 
class,  indefinite  in  extent,  which  may  well  be  given  prompt  consider- 
ation in  the  working  out  of  a  State  policy  of  land  administration  and 
development. 

The  class  of  land,  comprising  160,428.89  acres  of  the  amount  thus 
far  selected,  susceptible  of  reclamation  by  means  of  diversion  or 
storage,  presents  a  clear-cut  and  definite  problem,  involving  the 
question  of  State  reclamation  in  the  exact,  though  restricted  and 
uncomprehensive  sense  in  which  the  term  "reclamation"  is  general- 
ly accepted.  The  discussion  of  this  question  will  be  undertaken  in 
its  proper  place,  the  present  purpose  being,  merely  to  supply  infor- 
mation regarding  the  lands  held  by  the  State.  The  lands  included 
within  this  class  are  generally  semi-arid  in  character,  possessing 
little  revenue  value  in  their  present  state  and  small,  though,  always 
some,  desirability  for  grazing  purposes.  Their  ultimate  worth,  how- 
ever, both  intrinsic  and  from  an  economic  standpoint,  cannot  be 
doubted,  for  the  time  is  bound  to  come — and  the  earlier  it  comes 
the  better  for  Arizona — when  every  drop  of  water  that  can  be  di- 
verted from  its  course  to  the  sea  or  stored  in  mountain  gorges,  will 
be  directed  to  the  soil  and  required  to  fulfill  its  mission  to  mankind. 

The  lands  classed  as  ''dry- farm"  are  generally  such  as  have 
been  demonstrated,  by  successful  or  reasonably  successful  experi- 
ments, to  be  susceptible  of  practical  agricultural  development  by 
that  method. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  25 

Not  a  little  skepticism  still  exists  in  some  quarters  as  to  the 
feasibility  of  dry-farming  in  any  part  of  Arizona,  but  the  expression 
of  this  skepticism  becomes  less  pronounced  and  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
dry-farmer  more  pronounced  year  by  year,  and  the  observation 
and  belief  of  the  Commission  is  that  neither  the  area  which  may  be 
utilized  nor  the  degree  of  success  to  which  the  industry  may  be 
brought  are  as  yet  fully  appreciated.  It  is  true  that  there  have  been 
many  failures,  and  doubtless  there  will  be  many  more,  but  scien- 
tific experimentation,  the  dissemination,  by  the  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Department  of  the  State  University,  of  advanced  cultural 
methods,  and  an  increasing  knowledge  of  the  best  crops  to  grow 
and  how  to  utilize  them  to  the  greatest  advantage  are  producing 
their  logical  results.  The  business  and  science  of  dry-farming  in  Ari- 
zona is  making  definite,  steady  gains. 

A  portion  of  the  lands  placed  in  this  class  are  undoubtedly  the 
best  adapted,  at  the  present  time,  for  permanent  disposition  by  sale. 
Following  the  collection  of  definite  and  reliable  information  re- 
specting each  tract,  to  insure  against  the  making  of  even  uninten- 
tional misrepresentations,  and  in  furtherance  of  what  should  be  the' 
State's  fixed  policy  of  assisting  and  co-operating  with  rather  than 
gold-bricking  those  who  may  be  attracted,  a  considerable  portion  of 
these  lands  could  be  profitably  disposed  of. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Commission's  selections  include  a 
small  quantity  of  land  classified  as  valuable  for  grazing  only,  al- 
though the  policy  has  been  and  is  to  exclude  from  consideration 
such  tracts.  In  rare  cases  this  deviation  from  the  Commission's  rule 
is  considered  wise.  The  instances  of  such  deviation  will  be  found 
in  dry-farm  districts,  where  the  most  successful  operations  consist 
of  a  combination  of  farming  and  stock-raising,  and  a  small  amount 
of  grazing  land  contiguous  to  the  dry-farm  takes  on  an  added  value 
in  proportion  to  the  very  considerable  advantage  it  affords. 

Another  inconsiderable  exception  to  the  Commission's  policy  is 
shown  in  the  selection  of  8,744.61  acres  of  land  chiefly  valuable  for 
the  cedar  timber  growing  upon  it.  The  conservation  of  this  timber, 
which  w^as  chosen  for  the  excellence  of  its  stand  and  favorable  lo- 
cation for  transportation,  will  result  in  time  in  a  handsome  return 
to  the  State.  Its  lowest,  though  most  definite  value  at  present  is 
for  fuel  or  posts,  for  which  there  is  an  active  demand  and  a  rapidly 


26  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

decreasing  supply.  Placed  on  a  fuel  basis  it  has  a  stuinpage  value  of 
fifty  cents  per  cord,  and  an  estimate  of  the  cedar  land  selected  for 
the  State  indicates  that  it  would  noAV  yield  a  return  of  from  $5.50 
to  $6  per  acre.  The  stumpage,  and  therefore  the  acre  value,  is 
quite  certain  to  increase.  Some  investigation  has  also  been  given 
to  the  subject  of  utilizing  this  wood  for  lead  pencils,  and  it  seems 
likely,  in  view  of  the  scarcity  of  wood  for  that  purpose,  that  the  pro- 
ject is  not  altogether  remote.  Prior  to  the  European  war  samples 
were  submitted  to  German  pencil  manufacturers,  who  signified  their 
satisfaction,  and  that  they  could  probably  use  considerable  quanti- 
ties, at  a  price  which  would  make  the  wood  extremely  valuable. 
For  pencil  purposes,  of  course,  only  the  clear  pieces  are  adaptable, 
the  balance  of  the  tree  finding  its  way  to  the  fuel  market. 

A  classification  of  the  lands  withdrawn  for  survey,  but  which  by 
reason  of  their  unsurveyed  condition  have  not  been  formally  selected, 
is  impractical.  It  may  be  accepted  as  generally  true,  however,  that 
the  greater  portion  of  these  lands  which  will  finally  be  selected  are 
semi-arid  in  character  and  susceptible  of  reclamation  either  by 
pum])ing  or  by  means  of  storage  reservoirs,  and  an  outstanding 
fact  will  be  found  to  be  the  very  considerable  amount  of  land  that 
will  come  under  the  reservoir  class.  Not  less  than  eight  or  ten  ap- 
parently feasible  projects,  of  greater  or  lesser  magnitude,  are  con- 
trolled by  the  land  which  has  been  withdrawn.  Thus  it  may  be  seen 
that  when  title  to  this  land,  in  addition  to  that  of  like  class  already 
selected,  shall  have  finally  passed  to  the  State,  it  will  represent,  in 
the  most  direct,  concrete,  tangible  form,  a  reclamation  and  develop- 
ment opportunity  of  great  proportions  which  it  will  be  the  State's 
sacred  duty,  as  well  as  privilege,  to  improve. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  9? 

CLASSIFICATION  OF   SELECTED  INSTITUTIONAL  LANDS 


AGRICULTURAL. 

Dry  farm  

Dry  farm  and  flood  water 

Dry  farm  and  pumping  

Dry  farm,  flood  water  and  pumping 

Pumping  only  

Pumping  and  flood  water  

Susceptible     of     irrigation     by     storage     and 

diversion    

Woodland  and  dry  farm  

Woodland  and  grazing  

Grazing  only  

Total    

RECAPITULATION 
Total    susceptible    of    some    form    of    agricul- 
tural   development    

Other     classes,       not       susceptible       of     agri- 
culture     

Total  

GRAZING. 

Extra  good  

Good    

Medium    

Poor    

Pumping  

Dry  farm,  flood  water  and  pumping 

Susceptible      of     irrigation     by     storage     or 
diversion    

Total   '. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Total  having  a  grazing  value  

Other     classes,     having     agricultural     but     no 
grazing  value  

Total   .'. 

WOODLAND. 

Woodland  and  dry  farm  

Woodland  and  grazing  

Grazing    land,    having    neither    woodland    nor 

agricultural  value  

Agricultural     land,     having     grazing     but     no 

woodland  value  

Agricultural  land,  having  neither  woodland  nor 

grazing  value  

Total  


80,130.72  acres 

71,473.53  acres 

76,125.94  acres 

5,149.00  acres 

211,742.48  acres 

10,642.33  acres 

160,427.89  acres 

3,200.00  acres 

5,544.61  acres 

12,224.66  acres 


636,661.16  acres 

618,891.89  acres 

17,769.27  acres 

636,661.16  acres 


36,139.78  acres 
243,243.54  acres 
157,712.96  acres 
141,096.88  acres 

50,431.00  acres 
2,429.00  acres 

5,608.00  acres 


636,661.16  acres 

578,193.16  acres 
58,468.00  acres 


636,661.16  acres 

3,200.00  acres 
5,544.61  acres 

12,224.66  acres 

560,396.89  acres 

55,295.00  acres 


636,661.16  acres 


28  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

CLASSIFICATION  OF   SELECTED  INSTITUTIONAL  LANDS 

RECAPITULATION. 

Total  woodland 8,744.61  acres 

Other        classes,     having        agricultural       or  acres 

grazing,  or  both,  but  no  woodland 

value    627,916.55  acres 

Total   636,661.16  acres 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  29 

INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  COUNTIES. 


APACHE  COUNTY. 


Grant 

University     

Public    buildings    

Penitentiaries        

In^sane   asylums    

Schools   for  deaf,   dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools    

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural   and  mechanical   colleges    

fechool     of    mines 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     

Total      


Approved    |      Pending  Total 


1,360.96 


1,360.96 


1,360.96 


COCHISE  COUNTY. 


Grant 

University      , 

Public    buildings    

Penitentiaries     

Insane    asylums    

Schools  for  deaf,  dumb  and  blind    

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools    

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges    

School    of    mines 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     

Total    


Approved 


Pending 


Total 


12,242.00 
9,635.28! 

12,368.38 
5,080.00 


6,381.24 

3,136.30 

6,168.38 

12,713.76 


67,725.34 


12,783.03 


5.352.30 
5,115.64 
9,394.61 
3,679.10 
3.674.91 


10949.27 


25,025.03 
9,635.28 

12,368.38 
5,080.00 
5,352.30 
5.115.64 

15,775.85 
6,815.40 
9,843.29 

12,713.76 

10,949.27 


50,948.86       118,674.20 


COCONINO  COUNTY. 


Grant 


Approved 


Pending 


Total 


University     

Public    buildings    

Penitentiaries     

Insane  asylums    

Schools  for  deaf,   dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools    

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural   and  mechanical   colleges    

School    of    mines 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     


Total 


6,432.98 
6,432.98 


,432.98 


6,432.98 


30  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  COUNTIES. 


GRAHAM  COUNTY. 


Grant 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

University     

4,000.00 

6,356.51 
6,360.08 
6,386.42 
6,080.00 

2,720.00 
•160.00 

Public   buildings    

4,000.00 
6,356.51 
6,360.08 
6,386.42 
6,080.00 

2,720.00 
160  00 

Penitentiaries     

Schools    for    deaf,    dumb    ai^   blind 

Normal    schools 

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions    .  .  . 
Agricultural   and  mechanical   colleges                .       .  . 

School    of    mines 

Military    institutes    

Total      

4,000.00 

28,063.01 

32,063.01 

MARICOPA  COUNTY. 


Grant 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

80.00 

160.00 

6,321.57 
6,080.47 

160.00 

Public    buildings 

Schools   for  deaf,   dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals       .              .       .       .       

80.00 

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions    .  .   . 

6,321.57 

6,080.47 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     

1 

Total                                  .              

80.00 

12,562.04' 

1        12,642.04 

MOHAVE  COUNTY. 


Grant 

Approved 

Pending 
3,279.39 

240.00 

Total 

University     

Public    buildings    

Insane    asylum 

3,279.39 

Schools  for  deaf,   dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals                     

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions    .  .  . 

Agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges    

School    of    mines                                                         .    ... 

Military    institutes       .  .       .       

240.00 

Total      

3,519.39 

3,513.39 

REPORT  OP  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  COUNTIES. 


31 


NAVAJO  COUNTY. 


Grant 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

University     

3,047.15 
1,160.00 

Public    buildings      

Schools    for    deaf     dumb    and    blind 

3,047.15 

Miners'    hospitals    

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions    .  .   . 
Agricultural   and  mechanical  colleges    

Military    institutes    

1 

1          1,160.00 

' 

Total     

4,207.15 

1          4,207.15 

PIMA  COUNTY. 


Grant 


University     

Public   buildings    

Penitentiaries     

Insane   asylums . 

Schools  for  deaf,    dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools     

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  Institutions 

Agricultural   and  mechanical   colleges    

School    of   mines 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     


Total 


Approved 

Pending 

Total 

8.331.86 

8,331.86 

12,269.27 

12,269.27 

6,360.74 

6,360.74 

6,360.00 

6,360.00 

6,383.59 

6,383.59 

6,394.76 

6,394.76 

6,238.54 

6,238.54 

12.200.07 

12,200.07 

12,781.03 

12.781.03 

12,639.86 

12,639.86 

13,694.09 

13,694.09 

45,399.74 

58.254.07 

1     103,653.81 

PINAL  COUNTY. 


Grant 


University     

Public   buildings 

Penitentiaries     

Insane   asylums    

Schools  for  deaf,    dumb   and  blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools    

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural   and  mechanical  colleges    

S'chool  of  mines 

Military    institutes    

County   bonds 


Total 


Approved 


Pending 


19,825.13 
18,532.30 
19,173.16 
12,793.15 
19,156.20 

25,244.32 
18,949.93 


133,674.19 


8,561.61 

24,961.77 

6,286.55 
14,634.03 
19,132.33 

18,975.46 


92,551.75 


Total 


19,825.13 
18,532.30 
19,173.16 
21,354.76 
19,156.20 
24,961.77 
25,244.32 
25.236.48 
14,634.03 
19,132.33 

18,975.46 

226,225.94 


32  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  COUNTIES. 


YAVAPAI  COUNTY. 


Grant 

University    

Public    buildings    

Penitentiaries 

Insane     asylums     

Schools  for  deaf,   dumb   and    blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools     

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural   and  mechanical   colleges    

School    of    mines 

Military    institutes    

County    bonds     

Total     


Approved 


4,023.30 
11471.47 
10,309.85 

6,320.74 


32,125.36 


Pending 


)20.48 


1,994.67 


9,767.12 
12,682.27 


Total 


4,943.78 

11.471.47 

10,309.85 

1,994.67 

6,320.74 


767.12 


44,807.63 


YUMA  COUNTY. 


Grant 


Approved 


Pending 


Total 


University     

Public   buildings    

Penitentiaries     

Insane    asylums    

Schools    for    deaf,    dumb    and   blind 

Miners'    hospitals    

Normal    schools .  . 

Charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 

Agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges    

School  of  mines  

Military    institutes     

County    bonds     

Total     


6,353.51 


11,869.10 
6,400.00  I 

10,414.26 
6,587.28 
4,540.62 
5,453.97 
6.361.67 
6,399.28 
6,400.00 
4,621.56 

7,672.80 


11  869.10 
12.753.51 
10,414.26 
6,587.28 
4,540.62 
5,453.97 
6,361.67 
6,399.28 
6,400.00 
4,621.56 

7,672.80 


6,353.51  76,720.54  83,074.05 


[a^ 


RECAPITUI  ATION. 


Apprered 


Feadittg 


Settcrd 


Not 
Selected 


GrMt 


University     

40,398.99 

24,812.13 

65.211.12 

134,788.88 

200,000 

Public    buildings 

50,790.36 

6,400.00 

57,190.36 

42,809.64 

100,000 

Penitentiaries     

35,564.82 

24,052.01 

59,616.83 

40,383.17 

100,000 

Insane    asylums 

35,704.62 

24,788.36 

60,492.98 

39,507.02 

100,000 

Schools  for  deaf,  dumb 

and    blind 

29,466.05 

25,710.08 

55,176.13 

44,823.87 

100,000 

Miners'    hospitals 

*50,000.81 

*50,000.81 

50,000 

Normal     schools 

44,264,84 

15,756.28 

60,021.12 

139,978.88 

200,000 

Charitable,  penal  and 

reformatory  institutions 

34,286.30 

19,084.93 

53,371.23 

46,628.77 

100,000 

Agricultural   and  me- 

chanical colleges    .  . 

6,168.38 

43,971.54 

50,139.92 

99,860.08 

150,000 

School   of  mines 

12,713.76 

42,474.22 

55,187.98 

94,812.02 

150,000 

Military    institutes 

100,000.00 

100,000 

County    bonds 

70,252.68 
347,303.04 

70,252.68 
636,661.16 

929,747.32 

1,000,000 

Total 

289,358.12 

1,713,339.65 

2,350,000 

^Overdrawn   81-100   acres. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


33 


INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  GRANTS 

TABLE   II 
UNIVERSITY. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache    

Cochise    

Coconino    

Gila    

Graham 

12,242.00 

8,331.86 
19.825.13 

12,783.08 
160.00 

11,869.10 
24,812.13 

25,025.03 

Maricopa    1  . 

Mohave    

Navajo 

Pima    

Pinal   

fe'anta  Cruz 

Yavapai 

160.00 

8,331.86 
19.825.13 

Yuma     

11,869.10 

Total    

40,398.99 

65,211.12 

Not  selected 

134,788.98 

Total    grant    

200,000.00 

PUBLIC  BUILDINGS. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache    

9,635.28 
4.000.00 

12,269.27 
18,532.30 

6,353.51 

6,400.00 
6.400.00 

Cochise    

9,635.28 

Coconino    

Gila    

Graham               

4,000.00 

Greenlee    

Maricopa    

Navajo 

Pima    

Pinal    

Santa  Cruz 

Yavapai 

12,269.27 
18,532.30 

Yuma                        .       •                                     ...... 

12,753.51 

Total     

50.790.36 

57.190.36 

Not  selected    

Total  grant 

42,809.64 
100,000.00 

PENITENTIARIES. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache         .       .                                          

12.368.38 

19,173.16 
4,023.30 

6.356.51 

6,360.74 

920.48 
10,414.26 

24,051.99 

Cochise      

12,368.38 

Coconino    

Gila    

6,356.51 

Greenlee    

Maricopa   

Navajo 

Pima 

Pinal                 .                           

6,360.74 
19,173.16 

Yavapai     

Yuma     

4,943.78 
10,414.26 

Total    

Not  selected 

35,564.84 

59,616.83 
40,383.17 

Total    grant 


100,000.00 


34 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS   BY  GRANTS 

INSANE  ASYLUMS. 


County                                    1 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

5,080.00 

6,360.00 
12,793.15 

11,471.47 

6,360.08 
3,279.39 
8,561.61 

6,587.28 

Cochise      

5,080  00 

Gila 

Graham 

Greenlee             ... 

6,360.08 

Maricopa          

Mohave    

Navajo     

Pima    

Pinal      

3,279.39 

6,360.00 
21,354.76 

11,471.47 

6',587.2« 

Total       

35,704.62 

24,788.36 

60,492  98 

Not   selected     

39  507.02 

Total  grant 

100,000.00 

SCHOOLS    FOR    DEAF.    DUMB    AND    BLIND. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

19,156.20 
10,309.85 

5,352.30 
6.386.42 

3,047.15 
6,383.59 

4,540.62 
25,710.08 

5,352.30 

Gila                                .       .              

Graham          .         

6,386.42 

Greenlee              .       .       

Navajo                                                               .     .              ... 

3.047.15 

Pima      

6,383.59 

Pinal      

19,156.20 

Santa  Cruz   

Yavapai     

Yuma     

10,309.85 
4,540.62 

Total                                                  

29,466.05 

55  176.13 

Not  selected    

Total    grant    

44,823.87 
100,000.00 

MINERS'  HOSPITAL. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache    

Cochise     

5,115.64 
6,080.00 

6,394.76 
24,961.77 

1,994.67 
5,453.97 

5,115.64 

Gila                                                                           

Graham                        .       .       :.,.... 

6,080.00 

Greenlee                     .       

Pima    

Pinal      

6,394.76 
24  961.77 

Rnntn    Cm 7.                                       .         .         

Yavapai     

1,994.67 
5,453.97 

Total                                         

50,000.81 

*50,000.81 

Not  selected                           

Total     Grant     

50,000.00 

*Overdrawn  81-100  acres. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


35 


INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  GRANTS 

NORMAL  SCHOOLS. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

T : — r-._ 

Total 

Apache     

6,381.24 

80.00 

6.238.54 
25,244.32 

6,320.74 

9,394.61 
•       6,361.67 

Cochise      

15,775.85 

Coconino      

Gila     

Graham      

Greenlee 

Maricopa     ,  .  .  .  . 

Mohave      

80.00 

'Navajo     

Pima    

Pinal     

6,238.54 
25,244.32 

6,320.74 
6,361  67 

"Santa  Cruz 

Yavapai     

Yuma     

Total     

44,264.84 

15,756.28 

60,021.12 
139.978.88 

Not     selected    

Total  grant     

200,000.00 

PENAL,    CHARITABLE    AND     REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache     

3,136.30 

12,200.07 
18,949.93 

3,679.10 
2,720.00 

6,286.55 
6,399.28 

Cochise 

6,815.40 

Coconino      

Gila     

2,720.00 

Maricopa     

Mohave        

Navajo     

Pima      

12,200.07 

Pinal      

25,236.48 

Santa  Cruz   

Yavapai     

Yuma     

6,399.28 

Total    

Not  selected . 

Total    grant     

34.286.30 

19,084.93 

53,371.23 
46,628.77 

100,000.00 

AGRICULTURAL  AND  MECHANICAL   COLLEGES. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache     

Cochise      

6,168.38 

3,674.91 

160.00 
6,321.57 

12,781.03 
14,634.03 

6,400.00 

9,843.29 

Coconino 

Gila 

160.00 

Maricopa                                                                               .... 

6,321.57 

Mohave           ,              .       .                     

Pima      

12,781.03 

Pinal    

14,634.03 

Santa  Cruz                                           .                

Yavapai     

6,400.00 

Total    

Not  selected 

6,168.38 

43,971.54 

50,139.92 
99,860.08 

Total  grant 


150,000.00 


36 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


INSTITUTIONAL  SELECTIONS  BY  GRANTS 

SCHOOL   OF   MINES. 


County- 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache     

12.713.76 

6,080.47 

12,639.86 
19,132.33 

4,621.56 

Cochise      

12  713  76 

Coconina      

Gila     

Graham      

Greenlee    

Maricopa     

6  080  47 

Mohave      

Navajo     

Pima 

12,639.86 
19  132  33 

Pinal      

Santa  Cruz    

Yavapai     « 

Yuma     

4,621.56 

Total    

Not     selected    

12,713.76 

42,474.22 

55,187.98 
94,812.02 

Total      grant     

150,000.00 

COUNTY   BONDS. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache      

1,360.96 

10,949.27 

6.43a.99 

240.00 

1,160.00 

13,694.09 

18,975.46 

9,767.12 
7,672.80 

1,360.96 

Cochise    

10  949.27 

6.432.98 

Gila     

Graham      .  .  . 

Greenlee    

Maricopa     

Mohave      ... 

240.00 

Navajo     

1,160.00 
13,694.09 

Pima      

Pinal     

18,975.46 

Yavapai     

9,767.12 
7,672.80 

Total    

Not  selected 

70,252.68 

70,252.68 
929,747.32 

Total  grant    

1000,000.00 

RECAPITULATION. 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache 

67,725.32 

4,000.00 
80.00 

45,399.74 
133,674.19 

32,125.36 
6,353.51 

289,358.12 

1,360.96 

50,948.88 

6,432.98 

28,063.01 

12,562.04 

3,519.39 

4,207.15 

58,254.07 

92,551.75 

12,682.27 
76,720.54 

1,360.96 

Cochise    '. 

118,674.20 

6,432.98 

Gila     

Graham .       .             .       . 

32,063.01 

Greenlee    

Maricopa     

12.642.04 
3,519.39 

4,207.15 

Pima      

103,653.81 

Pinal      .     .             

226,225.94 

Santa  Cruz   

Yavapai     

44.807.63 
83,074.05 

Total 

347,303.04 

636,661.16 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


37 


APPLICATIONS  FOR  WITHDRAWAL  AND  SURVEY 


TABLE   III 


County 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache     

390,275 
46,000 

8,720 

907,240 

575,000 
570.500 

421,930 
774,570 

3,694,235 

299.000 

390,275 
46,000 

Gila    

Graham      

8,720 
1  206  240 

Greenlee    

Navajo     

Pima    

575,000 
570,500 

'   421,930 
774,570 

Pinal      

Santa  Cruz    

Yavapai     

Yuma       

Total    

299^000 

3,993,235 

RECAPITULATION  OF  WITHDRAWALS  AND  SELECTIONS 


TABLE    I\ 

Withdrawals 

Selections 

County 

Approved 

Pending 

Approved 

Pending 

Total 

Apache           .... 

390,275 
46.000 

8,720 

907,240 

575.000 
570,500 

421,930 

774,570 

299,000 

67,725.33 

4,000.00 
80.00 

45,399.74 
133,674.19 

32,125.36 
6,353.51 

1,360.96 

50,948.88 

6,432.98 

28,063.01 

12,562.04 

3,519.39 

4,207.15 

58,254.07 

92,551.75 

12,682.27 
76,720.54 

347,303.04 
289,358.12 

1,360.96 

508,949.20 

52,432.98 

Cochise       

Coconino      

Gila     

40,783.01 

Greenlee   

1,218,882.04 

Mohave 

3,519.39 

Navaio      

4,207.15 

Pima     

678,653.81 

Pinal     

&'anta  Cruz 

796,725.94 

466,737.63 

857,644.05 

3,694,235 

299,000 
3,694,235 

3.993.235 

289,358  12 

Total    

636,661.16 

4,629,896.16 

3g  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


SCHOOL  LANDS 


By  the  terms  of  the  Enabling-  Act  of  June  20,  1910  (36  U.  S. 
Stats.,  557),  there  were  granted  to  the  State  of  Arizona  "for  the 
support  of  common  schools,"  "in  addition  to  sections  16  and  36, 
heretofore  reserved  for  the  Territory  of  Arizona,  sections  2  and  32 
in  every  township  in  said  proposed  State  not  otherwise  appropriated 
at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  Act." 

Provision  was  also  made  that  "where  sections  2,  16,  32  and  36, 
or  any  parts  thereof,  are  mineral,  or  have  been  sold,  reserved,  or 
otherwise  appropriated  or  reserved  by  or  under  the  authority  of  any 
Act  of  Congress,  or  are  wanting  or  fractional  in  quantity,  or  where 
settlement  thereon  with  a  view  to  desert  land  entry  has  been  made 
heretofore  or  hereafter,  and  before  the  survey  thereof  in  the  field," 
other  lands  of  equal  acreage  may  be  selected  by  the  State,  in  lieu 
of  such  as  may  thus  be  taken. 

Further  provision  was  made  "that  the  grants  of  sections  2,  16, 
32  and  36  *  *  *  within  National  Forests  now  existing  or  pro- 
claimed, shall  not  vest  the  title  to  said  sections  in  said  State  until  the 
part  of  said  National  Forests  embracing  any  of  said  sections  is  re- 
stored to  the  public  domain,  but  said  granted  sections  shall  be  ad- 
ministered as  a  part  of  said  forests,  and  at  the  close  of  each  fiscal 
year  there  shall  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the 
State,  as  income  for  its  common  school  fund,  such  proportion  of  the 
gross  proceeds  of  all  the  National  Forests  within  the  State  as  the 
area  of  lands  hereby  granted  to  said  State  for  school  purposes  which 
are  situated  within  said  forest  reserves,  whether  surveyed  or  un- 
surveyed,  may  bear  to  the  total  area  *     *     *." 

The  total  area  of  sections  2,  16,  32  and  36,  in  every  township  in 
the  State,  thus  granted  "for  the  support  of  common  schools,"  is 
8,103,680  acres  (see  Table  No.  V,  page  67).  Of  this  area,  however, 
3,134,555.20  acres  are  unsurveyed,  and  the  title  of  the  State  has 
therefore  not  accrued ;  1,397,357.59  acres  are  in  National  Forests, 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  39 

and  are  being  administered,  under  the  terms  of  the  Enabling  Act,  by 
the  Forest  Service;  1,823,024.12  acres  are  situate  in  Indian  and 
other  reservations  authorized  by  Act  of  Congress,  and  168,707.62 
acres  were  "otherwise  appropriated  at  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the 
Enabling.  Act"  or  settlement  thereon  with  a  view  to  homestead  or 
desert-land  entry  was  made  before  the  survey  thereof  in  the  field. 
The  remainder,  1,580,035.47  acres,  represents  the  school  land  "in 
place"  at  the  present  time,  being  administered  by  the  Commission 
under  the  temporary  laws  enacted  for  that  purpose. 

EXAMINATION. 

As  in  the  case  of  institutional  lands,  the  Commission  deemed  an 
examination  of  the  school  lands  of  the  State,  and  their  proper  classi- 
fication, to  be  of  paramount  importance,  and  an  absolute  essential 
preliminary  to  any  attempt  to  adequately  administer  them  or  to  en- 
act intelligent  legislation  for  their  permanent  administration  or  dis- 
position. Acting  upon  this  theory,  therefore,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  law's  direction,  all  of  the  school  land  "in  place"  in  the 
State  has  been  examined,  with  a  view  to  determining  its  present 
usefulness,  its  adaptability,  possibilities,  present  and  potential  value, 
and.  in  the  case  of  land  in  sections  16  and  36  held  under  lease  prior 
to  Statehood,  as  nearly  as  possible  the  value  of  the  improvements 
thereon  ascertained,  with  a  view  to  affording  the  Legislature  the 
information  essential  to  the  preparation  of  a  plan  "for  the  equit- 
able adjustment  of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee,  residing  on 
any  of  said  land,  and  of  the  State."  (Paragraph  4566,  Chapter  1, 
Title  43.  Revised  Statutes  1913). 

The  Commission's  records  contain  reports  of  each  section,  or  in 
the  ease  of  tracts,  under  lease  or  otherwise,  containing  less  than  a 
section,  of  each  such  tract,  setting  forth  the  facts  with  respect 
thereto. 

It  may  hardly  be  claimed  that  the  examinations  upon  which 
these  reports  and  the  Commission's  subsequent  findings  are  based, 
were  in  every  instance  of  that  absolute  thoroughness,  or  marked 
with  such  exactitude  for  detail,  as  to  render  them  an  adequate 
foundation  for  individual  adjustments  or  as  final  appraisals  in  the 
case  of  a  disposition  of  the  land,  but  they  will  be  found  to  supply, 


40  REPORT  OP  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

with  practical  accuracy,  the  fundamental  information  necessary  for 
the  formulation  of  a  policy  for  the  handling  of  the  various  school 
land  problems. 

CLASSIFICATION. 

It  was  inevitable,  of  course,  that  an  examination  of  the  place 
school  lands  throughout  the  State  would  demonstrate  a  much 
smaller  proportion  susceptible  of  some  character  of  agricultural  de- 
velopment, and  therefore  a  lower  average  value,  than  in  the  case 
of  the  institutional  lands,  selected  with  a  view  primarily  to  their 
immediate  or  potential  agricultural  advantages.  While  it  is  true 
that  in  the  case  of  the  school  land  there  is  about  25,000  acres, 
under  the  Salt  River  and  Yuma  government  reclamation  projects, 
which  is  extremely  valuable,  and  many  other  tracts  falling  within 
well-settled  and  well-developed  districts  where  no  opportunity  is  af- 
forded for  the  selection  of  institutional  lands,  on  the  whole  the 
average,  by  comparison  with  the  latter,  is  low,  since  large  numbers 
of  sections  fall  in  mountainous  and  other  localities  possessing  no  ad- 
vantages or  possibilities  except  for  grazing,  and  occasionally  they 
are  totally  barren. 

Being  widely  scattered  and  non-contiguous,  they  do  not  offer 
either,  the  same  degree  of  opportunity  for  systematic,  comprehen- 
sive reclamation  and  development  as  is  presented  by  the  institu- 
tional lands,  which  in  the  majority  of  cases  are  in  considerable,, 
tolerably  compact  bodies.  But  such  opportunity  is  by  no  means 
entirely  wanting,  since  school  lands  will  be  found  to  the  extent 
of  from  two  to  four  sections  per  township  in  all  of  the  districts 
where  institutional  lands,  chosen  with  an  eye  to  their  future  de- 
velopment, are  located,  and  any  plan  or  system  evolved  for  the 
benefit  of  the  latter  can  as  well  be  applied  to  the  school  lands. 

The  classification  of  school  lands  exhibited  on  pages  65-66 
shows  that  of  the  1,580,035.46  acres  in  place,  1,128,461.61  acres  are 
desirable  only  for  grazing,  5,098.75  acres  are  waste  lands,  falling 
in  river  bottoms  and  on  barren  mountains ;  344,980.97  acres  possess 
both  present  grazing  advantages  and  agricultural  possibilities, 
while  101,494.13  acres  are  distinctly  agricultural  in  character  and 
are  either  in  a  present  stage  of  development  or  are  immediately  sus- 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  41 

ceptible  of  the  same.  The  school  lands  of  the  State  in  place  represent 
at  the  present  time,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  a  total  val- 
uation of  $6,266,505.79  exclusive  of  improvements,  or  an  average  of 
about  $4  per  acre.  This  appraisal  does  not  take  into  account  what 
the  lands  may  become  worth,  under  a  comprehensive  plan  of  de- 
velopment— a  subject  which  will  receive  attention,  in  conjunction 
with  the  institutional  lands,  in  the  Commission 's  discussion  of  a  per- 
manent land  policy. 

No  accurate  data  can  be  afforded  as  to  the  classification  or 
value  of  the  unsurveyed,  unreserved  lands  which,  when  surveyed, 
will  be  school  lands.  Wherever  such  sections  could  be  identified, 
and  it  was  convenient  to  do  so,  the  Commission  examined  them 
and  filed  reports  thereon,  as  an  economy  against  the  day  when  the 
lands  shall  have  been  surveyed,  but  in  addition  to  being  far 
from  complete  this  information  could  have  but  little  if  any  present 
value,  for  the  reason  that  much  of  the  land,  being  subject  to  the 
prior  rights  of  squatters,  may  never  become  school  land.  As  a 
general  proposition,  however,  it  would  seem  safe  and  conservative 
to  estimate  that  the  unreserved  and  unsurveyed  school  lands,  to- 
gether with  such  as  may  be  selected  as  indemnity,  will  average  al- 
most if  not  quite  as  high  in  value,  when  available,  as  the  land  now 
in  place.  Such  disadvantage  as  they  may  suffer  in  the  comparison 
by  reason  of  the  highly  valuable  irrigable  lands  which  comprise 
a  portion  of  the  school  lands  now  being  administered,  will  prob- 
ably be  compensated  by  the  choiceness  of  the  compact  bodies,  sus- 
ceptible of  development,  which  it  will  be  possible  to  secure  under 
the  various  provisions  of  the  law  relating  to  indemnity  selections. 

INDEMNITY  FOR  INDIAN  SCHOOL  LANDS. 

An  exceedingly  interesting  and  highly  important  phase  of  the 
question  of  indemnity  school  lands  is  suggested  bv  the  existence, 
in  Arizona,  of  the  enormous  area  devoted  to  Indian  reservations. 
Of  the  State's  total  area  of  72,931,840  acres,  17,637,050  acres,  or 
about  twenty-four  per  cent,  falls  within  Indian  reserva- 
tions. Without  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the  several-sided  sub- 
ject as  to  the  purpose,  the  need  and  the  effect  upon  the  State  and 
upon   the   government's   wards   themselves,   of   such   a    stupendous 


42  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

segregation  from  the  body  of  public  lands,  the  figures  given  will  im- 
mediately convey  to  the  mind  an  idea  of  the  reduction  of  the  grant 
for  school  purposes  which  is  thus  effected.  The  total  of  the  school 
lands  so  withdrawn  is  1.746,860.01  acres,  as  follows: 

Reservation.  Acres. 

Navajo   903,837.51 

Moqui  274,107.58  ^ 

Fort   Apache    177,759.24^ 

San  Carlos  Apache  177,920.00 

Kaibab  .-. 13,440.00 

Hualapai   106,240.00 

Fort  Mohave   560  00 

Colorado  River  27,827.66 

Fort  McDowell  2,905.651 

Salt   River   7,851.41 

Gila  Bend 640.00^ 

Gila   River 36,018.32 

Papago     17,752.64 

Total 1,746,860.01 

Under  the  provisions  of  Section  2275,  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States,  confirmed  and  extended  by  the  Enabling  Act,  when- 
ever sections  2,  16,  32  and  36  are  included  within  any  Indian  res- 
ervation, other  lands  of  equal  acreage  may  be  selected  by  the  State, 
though  the  State  may,  if  it  wishes,  await  the  extinguishment  of 
any  such  reservation  and  upon  the  restoration  of  its  lands  to  the 
public  domain  take  the  school  sections  in  place  therein. 

With  a  view  to  determining,  the  wisest  course  for  the  State  to 
pursue  under  the  existing  circumstances,  the  Commission  made  a 
preliminary  examination  of  a  number  of  reservations,  the  net  result 
of  which  is  a  conviction  that  with  the  exception  of  the  Fort  Apache, 
the  San  Carlos  Apache,  the  Kaibab  and  the  Colorado  River  reser- 
vations, with  a  total  of  school  land  of  396,946.90  acres,  the  school 
land  within  the  Indian  reservations  of  the  State  should  be  relin- 
quished, and  indemnity  taken  therefor. 

Especially  is  this  true  of  the  Navajo  and  Moqui  reservations, 
containing  1,177,945.09  acres  of  school  land,  which,  as  the  result 
of  a  careful  investigation  conducted  under  the  superintendence  of 
Commissioner  Wm.  A.  Moody,  is  considered  practically  worthless. 

Under  date  of  May  25,  1913,  Commissioner  Moody  wrote : 

"Your  attention  is  further  directed  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
total  of  903,837.51  acres  of  school  land  lying  within  the  Navajo 
Indian    Reservation    (including    some    79,360    acres,    the    status     of 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  43 

which,  as  an  Indian  reservation  is  in  doubt),  and  274,107.58  acres 
within  the  Moqui  reservation.  Judging  from  the  worthless  char- 
acter of  the  portion  already  reported  on,  I  believe  that  all  of  the 
land  within  these  two  Indian  reservations  is  largely  worthless 
and  of  very  limited  value  to  the  schools  of  our  State.  While  I 
have  evidence  that  there  is  considerable  country  within  these  two 
reservations  (that  is,  in  the  eastern  portion)  very  much  better 
than  the  areas  covered  by  this  report  j^which  was  the  western  por- 
tion), I  also  believe  it  is  not  unlikely  that  all  the  better  lands  in 
these  reservations  have  been  or  will  be  allotted  to  the  Navajo  and 
Moqui  Indians  prior  to  the  time  when  these  reservations  shall  be 
restored  to  the  public  domain,  I  therefore  recommend  that  the 
State  Land  Commission  continue  the  examination  of  these  reserva- 
tion lands  at  the  earliest  possible  date,  in  order  to  determine 
whether  it  will  be  advisable  to  make  lieu  selections  for  all  of  the 
school   lands   within   the   Navajo  and   Moqui   reservations." 

Though  no  other  reservation  contains  so  great  an  amount  of 
school  land,  or  land  of  such  insignificant  value,  there  are  a  num- 
ber so  situated  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  it  would 
be  to  the  very  great  advantage  of  the  State  were  the  school  lands 
contained  therein  converted  into  indemnity  lands.  There  are  a  few 
— notably  the  Colorado  River  reservation,  with  27,827.66  acres  of 
school  land,  and  the  Fort  Apache  and  San  Carlos  Apache  reserva- 
tions, with  a  combined  school  land  acreage  of  355,679.25,  where  the 
lands,  or  a  considerable  portion  thereof,  are  of  such  value  that  it 
would  probably  be  wise  to  await  the  extinguishment  of  the  reserva- 
tions, when  the  State  would  secure  the  school  lands  in  place.  The 
former  reservation  is  susceptible  of  irrigation,  either  by  means 
of  pumping  or  by  diversion  from  the  Colorado  river,  while  por- 
tions^f  the  Apache  reservations  are  well  watered  and  susceptible 
of  extensive  development. 

IMPROVEMENTS  ON  SCHOOL  LANDS. 

One  of  the  most  important  tasks  imposed  upon  the  Commis- 
sion by  the  Act  creating  it  was  that  of  determining,  as  provided  by 
Paragraph  4566,  Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913,  ^'the 
character  and  value  of  the  improvements  on  the  *  *  *  school 
lands  *  *  *  heretofore  leased,"  and  of  causing  the  same  to  be 
properly  appraised,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  "such  informa- 
tion as  will  afford  the  next  Legislature  ample  means  of  knowledge 
for  properly  and  adequately  providing  a  systematic  method  of 
handling  the  public  lands  of  the  State,  and  for  the  equitable  ad- 
justment of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee,  residing  on  any  of 
said  land,  and  of  the  State." 


44  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Cognizant  of  the  far-reaching  import  of  this  double-purposed 
requirement — that  of  aiding  in  an  equitable  adjustment  of  the 
claims  for  improvements  of  lessees  residing  on  school  lands  held 
under  Territorial  lease,  and  of  arriving  at  a  proper  method  for 
hereafter  handling  the  question  of  improvements — the  Commission 
has  earnestly  endeavored  to*  arrive  at  a  fair  valuation  of  the  dif- 
ferent classes  of  such  property. 

The  difficulties  attendant  upon  an  appraisal  of  improvements  on 
school  lands,  in  the  absence  of  a  judicial  interpretation  of  what  con- 
stitutes an  improvement,  or  the  extent  of  the  value  of  certain 
classes  of  improvements  vv^hich  may  have  some  but  an  indefinite 
standing  as  such,  will  be  appreciated.  Conceiving,  however,  that 
the  chief  need  consisted  in  placing  the  Legislature  in  possession  of 
the  complete  facts,  the  Commission  included  in  its  appraisal  every 
tangible  thing  that  could  by  any  process  of  reasoning  be  deemed 
an  improvement,  so  segregated  as  to  classes  that  the  proportion 
borne  by  improvements  of  a  doubtful  or  questionable  character  to 
those  of  well  recognized  and  definite  worth  may  be  readily  ascer- 
tained. 

The  only  definition  of  the  term  ''improvement,"  as  relating  to 
school  lands,  thus  far  written  into  an  Arizona  statute  is  that  con- 
tained in  Paragraph  4036.  Section  5,  Title  65,  Revised  Statutes  1901, 
which,  according  to  one  interpretation  of  the  State  Constitution,  is 
adopted  and  perpetuated  by  that  organic  act.  The  definition  there 
given  is : 

"Sec.  5.  Improvements  within  the  meaning  of  this  title  shall 
be  held  to  mean  anything  permanent  in  character,  the  result  of 
labor  or  capital  expended  on  such  land  in"  its  reclamation  or  devel- 
opment, and  the  appropriation  of  water  thereon,  which  has  en- 
hanced the  value  of  the  same  beyond  what  said  land  would  be 
worth  had  it  been  permitted  to  remain  in  its  original  state." 

Relying  upon  this  definition,  some  parties — and  it  must  be 
said  that  they  are  generally  former  lessees  who  have  failed  or  re- 
fused to  comply  with  the  law  provided  for  the  temporary  admin- 
istration of  school  lands — contend  that  the  value  of  their  improve- 
ments is  the  difference  between  what  the  land  was  worth  in  its 
original  state  and  what  it  is  worth  at  the  present  time;  in  other 
words,  that  the  entire  enhancement  of  value  which  the  land  may 
have  enjoyed  since  they  or  their  predecessors  became  tenants  there- 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION        4.5 

on,  was  the  result  of  labor  or  capital  expended  by  them  for  one  or 
the  other  of  the  purposes  specified,  and  that  therefore  they  are 
('iititliHl.  as  compensation  for  improvements,  virtually  to  the  land 
itself,  or  its  equivalent. 

This  interpretation — which  is  by  no  means  generally  held  by 
the  school  land  lessees  of  the  State — is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mission so  untenable,  and  so  entirely  foreign  to  the  scope  and  pur- 
pose of  the  legal  definition  of  the  term  ''improvements"  referred 
to,  as  well  as  to  the  law  of  reason,  that  the  Commission  has  not 
seen  fit  to  give  it  any  consideration  in  the  appraisals  made.  Since 
the  contention  is  particularly  applied  to  a  local  condition — though 
its  establishment  would  bring  exceedingly  far-reaching,  and  for  the 
State  disastrous  results — and  may  be  said  to  be  confined  to  a  group 
of  lessees  in  a  certain  locality,  its  further  discussion  will  be  in- 
eluded  in  a  full  and  separate  statement  of  that  case. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  definition  heretofore  quoted 
was  intended  merely  to  indicate  what  classes  of  improvements 
should  be  construed  as  such  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  relat- 
ing to  reimbursement,  and  to  limit  them  to  such,  permanent  in 
character,  as  enhance  the  value  of  the  land,  excluding  all  claims 
for  labor  performed  or  capital  expended — whether  the  results  of 
such  labor  or  capital  are  apparent  or  not — which  fail  to  so  enhance 
the  land^s  value,  and  that  the  statute  did  not  attempt  or  intend 
to  fix  the  value  of  any  such  improvements  at  the  amount  which  they 
might,  directly  or  indirectly,  ultimately  enhance  the  value  of  the 
land,  or  at  any  other  amount.  On  this  theory,  supported  by  the 
generally-held  moral  conception  of  what  a  lessee  might  expect,  with 
due  regard  for  justice  and  propriety,  to  receive  in  the  way  of  reim- 
bursement for  his  expenditures  of  labor  or  capital,  the  Commission 
has  in  its  appraisal  endeavored  to  consider,  first,  whether  or  not 
an  improvement  so-called  has  enhanced  the  value  of  the  land,  and 
if  so,  second,  what  was  the  reasonable  cost  of  or  expenditure  for 
the  same,  or  in  other  words,  what  it  would  cost  to  replace  the 
improvement. 

As  heretofore  suggested,  there  are  classes  of  improve- 
ments, so  regarded  by  the  lessee,  the  determination  of  the 
value  of  which,  as  an  enhancement  of  the  value  of  the  land  upon 
which  situated,  present  exceedingly  fine  and  doubtful  points.     In 


46  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

illustration  might  be  mentioned  interior  and  cross-iences,  which, 
though  satisfactory  to  the  party  erecting  them,  might  be  and  fre- 
quently are  worthless  to  a  subsequent  lessee,  and  therefore  in  his 
eyes  not  an  enhancement  of  the  value  of  the  land,  but  rather  a  det- 
riment; farm  irrigation  ditches,  which  are  subject  to  changes  as 
to  location,  and  which  might  in  fact  be  found,  upon  careful  inves- 
tigation, to  have  been  located  in  improper  places,  and  in  all  events 
are  subject  to  the  variations  of  value  caused  by  the  condition  in 
which  they  are  maintained;  and  sheep-dipping  vats,  useful  to  the 
lessee  who  erects  them  for  the  conduct  of  his  business,  but  very 
probably  of  no  value  whatever  to  a  subsequent  lessee  or  in  any 
measure  an  enhancement  of  the  value  of  the  land,  and  numerous 
other  items  which  will  suggest  themselves.  These  particular  items 
are  mentioned  merely  to  indicate  the  difficulties  attendant  upon  an 
accurate  appraisal  of  improvements,  and  as  evidence  of  the  care 
which  should  be  exercised  by  the  Legislature  in  the  formulation  of 
a  plan  "for  the  equitable  adjustment  of  the  reciprocal  rights  of 
the  lessee,  residing  on  any  of  said  land,  and  of  the  State." 

That  improvement  the  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  value  of 
which  is  probably  fraught  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  is  w^ater 
attached  and  appurtenant  to  school  land.  Where  the  appropria- 
tion of  water,  or  the  possession  of  water  rights  by  a  lessee,  consti- 
tute a  legal,  tangible,  going  possession,  or  asset,  appurtenant  to  and 
enhancing  the  value  of  the  land,  and  the  water  is  being  or  may  be 
applied  to  the  land  b}^  virtue  of  such  appropriation  or  right,  and 
not  without  it,  the  Commission  has  endeavored  to  ascertain  the 
cost  of  making  the  appropriation  and  of  the  works  necessary  for 
the  diversion  or  development  of  the  water,  or  the  fair  market  value 
of  similar  water  rights  in  the  same  locality  or  as  nearly  as  may 
be  under  similar  conditions.  In  such  cases  the  valuation  of  the 
water  appropriation  or  right  is  comparatively  simple.  But  there 
are  many  cases  presenting,  varied  and  complicated  aspects,  or  in- 
volving claims  by  lessees  the  allowance  of  which  would  be  tanta- 
mount to  the  State's  relinquishment  of  its  land  in  satisfaction  of 
the  alleged  enhancement  of  value  occasioned  by  the  appropriation 
of  water  upon  it,  and  the  consideration  of  these  cases  in  such  man- 
ner that  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  State  may  not  be  lost  sight 
of  or  sacrificed  while  perfect  justice  is  being  accorded  the  lessee, 
constitutes  a  serious,  vital  duty. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  47 

Since  the  questions  involved  in  the  adjustment  of  these  excep- 
tional cases  have  generally  been  raised  by  the  lessees  heretofore 
referred  to,  who  interpret  the  value  of  their  improvements  to  be 
the  total  enhancement  of  the  land  during  the  period  of  their  occu- 
pancy or  since  the  application  of  water  to  it,  the  subject  will  be 
further  and  more  definitely  discussed  in  connection  with  the  de- 
tailed consideration  of  the  problems  presented  by  the  improved 
school  lands  under  the  Salt  River  valley  reclamation  project,  on 
which  these  lessees  reside  or  upon  which  they  held  leases  prior  to 
Statehood. 

The  value  of  existing  improvements  on  the  school  lands  of  the 
State  which  were  under  lease  at  the  date  of  Statehood  reaches  the 
grand  total  of  $778,294.47.  exclusive  of  water  rights  (See  Table 
VI.  page  67).  Such  water  rights  as  in  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
mission clearly  constitute  an  improvement  within  the  meaning  of 
the  law.  and  for  which  the  owner  is  entitled  to  reimbursement, 
are  valued  at  $70,682.  (For  tabulated  appraisal  of  improvements  by 
classes  see  Table  VII,  page  68).  These  figures  should  be  sufficient 
to  impress  the  Legislature  with  the  seriousness  of  the  problem  pre- 
sented by  the  ''equitable  adjustment  of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the 
lessee,  residing  on  any  of  said  land,  and  of  the  State.'* 

Neither  should  sight  be  lost  of  another  significant  circumstance 
— that  the  figures  given  represent  merely  what  the  Commission,  in 
its  judgment,  conceives  to  be  the  maximum  value  of  the  improve- 
ments appraised,  whereas  the  lessees  themselves  in  a  great  many 
cases  place  higher,  and  in  frequent  instances  very  much  higher 
valuations  upon  the  same  property.  The  discrepancy  should  not  be 
understood  to  mean  that  all  school  land  lessees,  in  making  appli- 
cation for  permits,  have  placed  fictitious  and  greatly  magnified 
valuations  upon  their  improvements.  It  is  true  that  in  some  in- 
stances the  Commission  believes  this  to  have  been  done,  but  on 
the  contrary  a  great  majority  of  the  applicants  have  endeavored 
to  be  fair.  The  ex-lessees  who  are  most  likely  to  be  disposed  toward 
the  making  of  extravagant  claims  are  those  who  have  refused  to 
comply  with  the  law  in  any  respect ;  who  have  not  made  application 
for  permits,  and  who  have  not,  therefore,  provided  the  Commis- 
sion with  any  statement  whatever  of  their  improvements.  The 
difference  between  the  figures  presented  by  applicants  for  permits 
and  the  Commission's  appraisal  of  the  same  improvements  may  gen- 


48  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

erally  be  attributed  to  the  lack  of  any  standard  of  values  by  the 
lessees,  and  their  very  natural  tendency  to  value  improvements, 
not  at  what  they  are  worth  within  the  law's  meaning,  but  at  what 
they  are  considered  to  be  worth  to  the  lessees  themselves. 

ADMINISTRATION. 

With  the  business-like  purpose  in  view  of  maintaining  undis- 
turbed the  status  of  lands  held  under  lease  prior  to  Statehood,  pend- 
ing the  collection  of  data  upon  which  to  base  a  fair  and  equitabl" 
adjustment  with  the  lessees  having  improvements  thereon,  and  thf 
establishment  of  a  systematic  method  of  permanently  administer- 
ing, such  lands,  the  First  Legislature,  by  the  Act  approved  May  17, 
1913  (Paragraph  4567,  Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913). 
authorized  and  empowered  the  Commission  ''to  grant,  to  bona  fide 
occupants  of  university  and  school  lands  who  held  leases  upon  the 
same  at  the  date  of  Arizona's  admission  to  Statehood,  permits  to 
continue  to  occupy  the  said  lands  until  otherwise  provided  by  law," 
subject  to  certain  specified  conditions  and  to  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Commission. 

By  a  provision  of  the  amendment  of  May  17,  1913,  the  Commis- 
sion was  also  given  charge  of,  and  authority  to  lease  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  five  years,  any  State  land  not  theretofore  leased,  or  the 
administration  of  which  was  not  otherwise  provided  by  law. 

With  the  manner  in  which  the  administrative  duties  thus  im- 
posed have  been  discharged,  the  results  thereof,  the  information 
afforded  by  the  experience,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  lessees  have 
complied  with  the  law,  this  report  will  now  deal.  That  portion  of 
the  subject  which  relates  to  university  lands  will,  however,  be  con- 
sidered under  a  division  devoted  exclusively  to  the  various  matters 
pertaining  to  university  lands. 

PERMITS  TO  TERRITORIAL  LESSEES. 

The  most  important,  for  a  number  of  reasons,  of  the  adminis- 
trative duties  imposed  upon  the  Commission,  was  the  granting  of 
permits  for  the  continued  occupancy  of  school  lands  held  under 
Territorial  lease.  It  was  necessary  that  the  status  of  these  lands 
should  be  maintained,  not  only  to  the  end  that  the  State's  property 
might  be  protected,  and  a  fair  revenue  derived  therefrom,  but  that 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  49 

the  lessees  themselves  might  remain  undisturbed,  and  their  rights 
and  interests  safeguarded.  A  provision  of  the  State  Constitution 
guaranteed  to  bona  fide  residents  and  lessees  reimbursement  for 
certain  improvements  placed  on  school  lands,  but  there  was  no 
provision  for  carrying  the  Constitutional  guarantee  into  effect  and 
no  data  upon  which  to  formulate  one.  Neither  the  extent  nor  char- 
acter of  the  improvements  on  school  lands  were  known,  nor  could 
they  be  approximated.  An  off-hand  attempt  to  provide  for  the 
direct  reimbursement  of  lessees,  as  some  contended  the  State  should 
do,  might  well  have  spelled  financial  ruin,  if  indeed  it  might  not  have 
proved  a  veritable  impossibility.  The  lessees  were  recognized  to 
have  certain  rights,  which  should  under  no  circumstances  be  de- 
nied them,  but  likewise  the  State,  as  custodian  of  the  welfare  of 
all  the  people,  and  specifically,  in  this  instance,  of  the  educational 
welfare  of  the  children  of  the  State,  had  also  important — if  not, 
indeed,  vital — rights,  and  it  would  have  been  the  height  of  business 
folly  to  have  moved  otherwise  than  with  caution.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances, the  only  sane,  logical  thing  that  could  be  done,  was 
done. 

In  compliance,  therefore,  with  the  law's  direction,  the  Com- 
mission notified  all  lessees  in  the  State,  holding  school  land  under 
Territorial  leases,  that  their  applications  for  permits  to  continue 
the  occupancy  of  the  same  would  be  received,  and  bespoke  their 
co-operation  in  the  State's  effort  to  systematically  and  "equitably 
adjust  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee,  residing  on  any  of  said 
land,  and  of  the  State."  With  the  blank  application  prepared  for 
the  purpose,  the  Commission  submitted  also  a  form  for  a 
statement  of  the  improvements  contained  on  the  land.  The  rentals, 
for  the  period  beginning  with  the  date  of  Arizona's  admission  to 
Statehood,  when  all  Territorial  leases  expired,  were  to  be  fixed 
by  the  Boards  of  Supervisors  of  the  various  counties,  as  under  the 
old  law,  but  in  all  other  respects  the  land  was  to  be  administered 
by  the  Commission.  This  feature  of  the  law  was  altered,  by  the 
amendment  approved  May  17,  1913,  so  that  while  the  Boards  of 
Supervisors  were  still  required  to  assess  the  rentals  to  be  charged  for 
the  school  lands  in  their  respective  counties,  their  action  was  sub- 
ject to  review  and  alteration  by  the  Commission,  thus  virtually 
placing  the  fixing  of  rentals  in  the  hands  of  the  Commission,  where, 
as  experience  shows,  it  belongs. 


50  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Response  to  the  Commission 's  notice  was  generally,  though  by 
no  means  immediately  or  universally  complied  with.  The  difficul- 
ties attendant  upon  the  making  of  an  application  for  a  permit,  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  it  first  had  to  go  through  the  hands  of  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  for  the  fixing  of  the  rental,  caused  many  de- 
lays, required  many  repetitions  of  the  Commission's  letters  of  noti-' 
fication,  and  occasioned  much  correspondence  explaining  the  re- 
quirements. 

As  shown  by  the  report  of  the  Commission  dated  February  1, 
1913,  there  were  in  existence  at  the  date  of  Statehood — February 
14,  1912 — a  total  of  1126  leases,  distributed  throughout  all  the 
counties  of  the  State.  Of  this  number,  219  were  at  once  canceled 
by  the  Commission,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  tracts  they  cov- 
ered were  located  in  the  National  Forests,  and  their  administration 
was  by  the  Enabling  Act  taken  from  the  State  and  placed  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  National  Forest  Service.  In  addition  ninety- 
six  were  canceled  because  the  land  for  which  these  leases  had  been 
granted  by  Boards  of  Supervisors,  were  unsurveyed,  and  the  State, 
therefore,  had  no  title  to  the  same.  The  Boards  of  Supervisors,  in 
granting  leases  on  unsurveyed  lands,  were  clearly  acting  without 
authority  of  law,  and  the  practice  was  immediately  discountenanced 
and  discontinued  by  the  Commission.  Three  were  canceled  because 
of  the  discovery  that  they  were  in  Indian  reservations,  and  two  be- 
cause of  their  inclusion  within  private  land  grants.  There  remained, 
therefore,  806  tracts  or  parcels  of  school  land  under  valid  lease  at 
the  date  of  Statehood.  Without  attempting  to  define  the  term  "bona 
fide  occupants,"  as  contained  in  the  authorization  by  the  Legislature 
to  grant  permits,  the  Commission,  seeing  no  evil  that  could  follow, 
took  the  position  that  it  would  consider  all  of  the  holders  of  these 
806  Territorial  leases  to  be  "bona  fide  occupants"  and  issue  per- 
mits to  them,  without  respect  to  residence,  upon  proper  application. 

As  of  the  date  above  mentioned — February  1.  1913 — 450  appli- 
cations had  been  received,  seven  leases  had  been  canceled  by  re- 
linquishment, and  349  lessees  had  failed  or  refused  to  comply  with 
the  law. 

It  was  apparent  to  the  Commission  that  even  at  such  a  late 
date  as  February  1,  1913,  not  a  few  of  the  failures  to  make  appli- 
cation were  due  to  simple  carelessness  and  neglect,  or  to  a  linger- 
ing uncertainty  on  the  part  of  some  as  to  how  to  proceed.     Still 


REPORT  OP  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  51 

other,  and  quite  a  number,  of  the  delinquents  could  be  accounted 
for  on  the  ground  that  they  had  been  holding  leases  strictly  as  a 
gamble,  in  the  hope  that  the  legislative  wheels  of  fortune  would, 
upon  the  adoption  of  State  land  laws,  give  them  preferred  rights, 
as  lessees,  to  acquire  the  land  for  a  nominal  consideration.  Since 
a  contrary  temper  had  been  so  clearly  shown  by  the  provisions  of 
the  State  Constitution,  and  practically  all  opportunity  for  specu- 
lation had  been  eliminated  by  the  statutes  enacted  for  the  tem- 
porary administration  of  the  land,  they  had  lost  interest  in  their 
holdings,  containing  no  improvements  for  which  they  could 
claim  reimbursement,  and  desiring  to  retire  had  adopted  the  simple 
method  of  failing  to  apply  for  permits. 

But  there  was  still  another  and  probably  a  larger  class  included 
in  the  349  lessees  whose  applications  had  not  been  received.  Long 
prior  to  February  1,  1913 — in  fact,  soon  after  assuming  its  duties — 
the  Commission  had  become  aware  of  an  organized  opposition  to 
compliance  with  the  law,  an  organization  of  lessees  who,  whatever 
their  avowed  purpose,  took  the  position  that  there  were  no  de- 
mands of  patriotism  or  fairness  which  required  them  to  co-operate 
with  the  State  in  its  effort  to  secure  an  equitable  adjustment  of  its 
self-imposed  obligation  to  school  land  lessees.  Advised  by  attor- 
neys whose  motives  it  is  without  the  purpose  of  this  report  to  dis- 
cuss, but  whose  activities  have  seriously  hampered  the  Commis- 
sion's work,  these  organized  lessees  stood  upon  the  arbitrary  and 
seemingly  wholly  useless  contention  that  inasmuch  as  their  leases 
terminated  with  Statehood,  and  the  law — according  to  their  inter- 
pretation— provided  for  reimbursement  for  improvements  upon  the 
termination  of  leases,  they  must,  willy-nilly  be  reimbursed,  regard- 
less of  the  fact  that  no  provision  therefor  had  been,  or  could  with- 
in reason  have  been  made,  and  pending  such  reimbursement  they 
would  make  no  application  for  continued  occupancy,  but  wo:ild 
nevertheless  continue  to  occupy  and  receive  the  benefits  of  the  land 
upon  which  they  had  held  Territorial  leases  without  the  payment 
to  the  State  of  compensation  therefor.  It  may  be  added  that  their 
conception  of  the  value  of  their  improvements — a  circumstance 
which  has  heretofore  been  alluded  to — was  based  upon  the  theory 
that  they  were  entitled  to  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the 
land  in  its  original  state  and  at  the  present  time.  Obviously,  there- 
fore, the  true  purpose  of  these  lessees  was  to  force  the  State  into 


•52  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

a  sale  of  the  lands  occupied  by  them,  on  the  most  nominal  terms, 
since  compliance  with  their  claims  as  to  the  extent  to  which  they 
were  entitled  to  reimbursement  for  improvements  was  plainly 
impossible  on  any  other  basis  or  by  any  other  plan. 

The  Commission  must  state  its  belief,  however,  that  the  ex- 
treme, radical  and  altogether  unreasonable  views  here  outlined, 
are  not  wholly  shared  by  a  gf  eat  many  of  the  lessees  who  have  aided 
in  the  organized  opposition  to  compliance  with  the  law,  and  who 
are  actually,  though  passivelj'.  connected  with  the  organization  in 
question.  The  views  described,  with  variants  equally  unreasonable, 
are  confined,  in  the  Commission's  opinion,  to  a  comparatively  few 
leading  spirits,  who  have  been  active  in  enlisting  the  co-operation 
of  their  fellow  lessees.  The  Commission  has  from  the  first  per- 
sisted in  its  effort  to  convince  the  lessees  having  claims  for  improve- 
ments that  the  safest,  as  well  as  the  proper  course  for  them  was 
to  exhibit  a  spirit  of  fairness  and  co-operation  with  the  State,  and  • 
to  comply  with  the  law  in  the  full  assurance  that  their  rights 
would  be  protected.  Many  confessed  a  conviction  that  such  a 
course  was  best,  and  that,  having  become  so  convinced,  they  would 
gladly  make  the  required  application  for  permits,  but  they  were 
deterred  by  an  agreement  they  had  entered  into  to  stand  with 
others  in  refusing. 

Aided  by  the  amendment  of  May  17,  1913,  which  required  the 
submission  of  applications  by  August  1,  1913,  the  Commission's 
continued  efforts  to  induce  compliance  with  the  law  resulted  in 
receiving,  101  applications  from  lessees  throughout  the  State,  since 
the  date  of  the  report  above  referred  to.  This,  together  with  forty 
cancellations  for  various  causes,  leaves,  of  the  349  lessees  who  had 
failed  to  make  application  by  February  1,  1913,  208,  as  shown  by 
Table  X,  page  86,  who  still  refuse,  or  have  failed  to  comply  with 
the  law.  It  will  be  noted  that  of  these,  102  are  in  Maricopa  county, 
where,  to  lessees  of  land  under  the  Salt  River  project,  the  organ- 
ized opposition  to  applying  for  permits  for  further  occupancy  is 
confined,  in  fact  if  not  quite  wholly  in  spirit. 

The  Commission  believes  it  can  safely  say  that  the  106  lessees 
in  counties  outside  of  Maricopa,  and  at  least  some  of  those  in 
Maricopa,  who  have  not  made  applications,  have  failed  for  other 
reasons  than  opposition  to  the  law.  It  will  probably  be  found,  in 
a  majority  of  cases,  that  they  have  abandoned  the  land,  having. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  53 

110  improvements  thereon,  probably  having  never  even  used  it.. and 
have  neglected  to  apprise  the  Commission  of  their  action. 

Tlu'  situation,  therefore,  with  respect  to  the  law  requiring 
the  making  of  applications  for  permits  for  the  further  occupancy 
of  school  lands,  narrows  down  to  practically  complete  compliance 
throughout  the  State  except  by  a  certain  number,  estimated  to  be 
se\^enty-five,  occupying  5,818.50  acres  of  highly  valuable  agricultural 
land  under  the  Salt  River  project. 

Despite  the  law  re([uii'ing  the  submission  of  applications  by 
August  1,  1913,  failing  which  the  occupants  of  school  lands  might 
be  deemed  trespassers  and  proceeded  against  by  an  action  of  forci- 
ble entry  and  detainer,  the  Commission  has  not  seen  fit  to  so  pro- 
ceed in  any  case.  The  Commission  has  all  along  been  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  desire  to  assist  in  effecting  an  equitable  settle- 
ment between  the  State  and  the  lessees,  on  a  basis  absolutely  just 
to  all,  without  recourse  to  litigation,  and  w4th  the  desire  to  pro- 
tect the  real  and  legitimate  rigjits  of  the  lessees — even  of  those 
whose  opposition  to  the  law  would  seem  to  be  endangering  their 
own  rights.  Encouraged  by  the  fact  that  its  efforts  were  steadily, 
if  gradually,  bearing  good  fruit,  and  hopeful  that  all  of  the  school 
land  occupants  would  finally  realize  that  their  own  interests  lie 
in  a  course  different  from  the  one  they  were  pursuing,  the  Com- 
mission deferred  the  bringing  of  a  test  action  so  long  that  it  was 
finally  deemed  wise  to  await  the  approaching  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature. That  body,  with  all  the  facts  before  it,  will  be  in  a  position 
to  enact  legislation  commensurate  therewith  and  adequate  to  cover 
all  contingencies.  In  the  meantime,  it  is  not  felt  that  the  State 
has  suffered  any  pecuniary  loss,  aside  from  the  temporary  depriva- 
tion of  the  sums  which  it  should  have  received  by  way  of  rental 
Tor  the  school  lands  occupied  without  the  authority  of  permits. 

A  complete  tabulated  statement  of  the  disposition  of  the  school 
tracts  held  under  lease  at  the  date  of  Statehood,  accompanied  by 
a  financial  showing  setting  forth  the  rentals  derived,  the  rentals 
delinquent  and  the  rentals  earned  by  tracts  for  which  the  leases 
were  canceled,  and  tracts  for  which  applications  have  not  been 
received,  by  annual  [)eriods,  will  be  found  in  Tables  XIII  and  XIV, 
pages  112-113. 


54  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

SPECULATION  IN  SCHOOL  LANDS. 

The  Commission's  researches  have  disclosed  the  prevalence  in 
the  past — and  to  a  considerable  degree  even  yet — of  a  more  or  less 
widespread  traffic  in  school  lands,  a  traffic  involving  many  exceed- 
ingly undesirable  and  not  a  few  reprehensible,  if  not  indeed  fraud- 
ulent and  actionable  practices. 

One  of  the  commonest  of  these  practices,  and  the  mildest,  was 
to  lease  a  tract  of  raw  school  land  for  a  nominal  figure,  make  a  show 
of  cultivating  it,  place  a  few  insignificant  and  inexpensive  improve- 
ments thereon,  and  sub-lease  it,  as  improved  land,  at  an  exorbitant 
increase,  either  for  cash  rental  or  on  shares.  Aside  from  the  fact 
that  the  prohibition  against  sub-leasing  without  written  consent 
was  invariably  ignored,  this  practice  could  probably  be  designated 
by  no  more  odious  title  than  that  of  speculating  off  of  the  prop- 
erty of  Arizona's  school  children,  but  that  it  has  for  so  long  been 
suffered  to  continue  unchecked,  and  in  fact  to  grow,  demonstrates 
a  serious  defect  in  the  law  or  in  the  method  of  administering  it. 
A  striking  instance  of  this  practice,  has  recently  come  to  the  Com- 
mission's attention,  where  a  small  tract  of  school  land  was  held 
under  Territorial  lease  by  California  parties,  who  sub-leased  at 
an  increased  rental  of  about  two  thousand  per  cent.  The  holders 
of  the  Territorial  lease  have  never  applied  for  a  permit  for  the 
further  occupancy  of  the  land,  and  therefore  have  paid  nothing  for 
its  use  subsequent  to  the  Territory's  admission,  but  have  neverthe- 
less continued  to  exact  the  stipulated  price  from  their  sub-lessees. 
These  sub-lessees,  recently  learning  that  the  parties  from  whom 
they  were  renting  had  not  secured  a  permit,  became  fearful  that 
their  tenure  of  the  land  was  insecure  and  that  the  State  might  step 
in  at  any  time  and  eject  them,  and  discontinued  their  payments. 
At  last  accounts  the  California  overlords,  who  have  ignored  the 
law  relating  to  permits,  and  have  themselves  paid  no  rental  what- 
ever for  the  land  they  held  prior  to  Statehood,  were  endeavoring 
to  convince  their  sub-lessees  that  unless  payments  were  resumed 
they  would  proceed  with  an  action  for  ejectment.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  they  will  not  do  so. 

A  far  more  reprehensible  mode  of  trafficking  in  the  school 
lands  themselves,  rather  than  merely  in  the  leases  on  them,  was  to 
secure  raw  tracts — in  some  cases  through  dummies  and  in  other 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  55 

^va\^s  not  set  explained,  of  several  times  the  amount  allowed  by 
law — and  parcel  them  out,  under  contracts  for  periodical  payments 
or  installments,  bearinf?  heavy  interest  eharores.  at  prices  frequently 
fully  equal  to  the  value  of  the  land  itself.  Such  of  these  contracts 
;is  the  Commission  has  seen — almost  always  imposed  upon  very 
j)()or  people,  such  as  would  naturally  be  most  easily  attracted  by 
an  opportunity  to  be|i:in  farming  at  a  small  initial  outlay — coupled 
with  other  information  secured  by  the  Commission,  Jead  to  the 
belief  that  they  were  probably  induced  by  false  representations  re- 
ji'ardino"  the  character  and  value  of  the  title  which  could  be  deliv- 
ered, leading'  the  purchasers  to  believe  that  they  were  securing 
j)roperty  of  value  commensurate  with  the  price  asked,  whereas  all 
they  were  getting  was  the  privilege  of  toiling  their  lives  away  in 
the  interest  of  a  sharp  and  not  too  conscientious  trader.  These 
contracts,  of  course,  provided  that  failure  to  make  any  of  the  stip- 
ulated payments  would  work  a  forfeiture  of  tlie  land,  and  the 
Commission's  information  is  to  the  effect  that  although  the  crops 
raised  had  first  to  be  devoted  to  satisfying,  the  payments,  it  was 
frequently  the  case  that  the  payments  could  not  be  met.  The  result 
was  loss  to  the  hoodwinked  purchaser  of  all  he  had  paid  and  his 
labor  and  time  while  on  the  land,  while  the  enterprising  trafficker 
in  school  land  secured,  in  addition  to  such  cash  payments  as  might 
have  been  made  him.  the  improvements  placed  on  the  land.  Having' 
dispossessed  the  delinquent  purchaser,  there  was  then  nothing  to 
interfere  with  a  repetition  of  the  transaction,  with  more  highly 
improved  land  to  trade  on  and  the  possibility  of  securing  a  more 
remunerative  figure.  The  Commission  has  copies  of  some  of  the 
contracts  from  which  the  above  description  is  taken,  and  other  in- 
formation which  may  hereafter  prove  of  interest. 

Suffice  it  to  say  at  this  time  that  due  attention  should  be  paid 
to  the  enactment  of  laws  by  means  of  which  the  practice  of  spec- 
ulating in  school  lands  may  be  effectually  prevented. 

Warned  by  the  discovery  of  the  reprehensible,  if  not  illegal, 
practices  which  have  prevailed,  the  (commission  has  oti  a  number 
of  occasions  taken  advantage  of  the  law  giving  it  authority  to  grant 
or  withhold  permission  to  transfer  permits  or  to  sub-lease,  to  pro- 
hibit extortion,  but  the  Commission's  efforts  in  this  direction  could 
only  extend  to  the  lands  for  which  permits  have  been  granted.  It 
is  believed  that  among  the  ex-lessees  who  have  failed  to   comply 


56  REPORT  OP  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

with  the  law  relating  to  permits  practices  have   continued  which 
are  worthy  of  investigation  by  the  legal  department  of  the  State. 

EARNING  POWER  OF  SCHOOL  LANDS. 

A  comparison  of  the  earning  power  of  the  school  lands  which 
were  under  lease  at  the  date  of  Statehood,  under  the  rates  put  in 
effect  by  the  Commission,  as  against  the  rates  previously  charged 
by  the  various  Boards  of  Supervisors,  is  set  forth  (See  Tables  IX 
to  XI,  pages  72  to  87),  not  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  a  greatly 
enhanced  rental,  but  to  show  the  results  of  equalization.  Under 
the  Territorial  system,  and  during  the  first  thirteen  months 
of  the  Commission's  existence,  school  land  rentals  were  fixed  by 
the  Boards  of  Supervisors,  with  no  authority  for  revision  by  the 
Commission.  It  was  found  during  that  period  that  the  greatest 
inequality  existed  among  the  counties  of  the  State.  There  was  al- 
most no  attempt  at  classification  in  any  county,  and  no  uniformity 
at  all  as  between  the  counties.  For  instance,  the  rental  of  grazing 
sections  in  Pinal  county — where,  however,  very  few  were  leased — 
was  placed  at  $48,  at  $30  in  Santa  Cruz,  at  $20  in  a  number,  at  $15 
in  Apache  and  $10  in  Coconino.  This  difference  in  rental  did  not 
represent  a  corresponding  difference  in  the  grazing  value  of  school 
lands  in  the  different  counties — since,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  fre- 
quently happened  that  the  lowest  rental  was  being  charged  for  the 
best  lands,  and  vice  versa — but  merely  represented  the  widely  vary- 
ing official  views  of  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  fix  the  rentals,  and 
doubtless  in  some  cases  reflected  the  desires  of  the  local  interests 
most  directly  concerned.  Such  a  result  is  inevitable  where  there 
is  no  established  standard  or  system  for  measuring  values,  and 
where  the  authority  for  fixing  them  is  divided. 

The  Commission  conceived  the  first  necessity  of  the  situation 
to  be  the  establishment  of  a  standard  for  the  measurement  of 
rental  values,  rather  than  the  immediate  and  indiscriminate  raising 
of  rentals,  and  during  the  past  year  has  devoted  much  attention 
to  that  work.  In  the  case  of  grazing  lands,  a  minimum  price  of 
$20  per  section  was  fixed,  and  this  rate  graded  upward,  according 
to  the  especially  favorable  or  extraordinary  conditions  which  go 
to  make  some  sections  of  greater  value  than  the  average.  The 
effort  of  the  Commission  has  been  to  learn  what  each  tract  of  school 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  57 

land  is  really  worth,  and  to  charge  accordingly — not,  indeed,  to 
charge  what  the  land  is  worth,  as  an  individual  would  expect  to 
charge,  on  the  basis  of  a  fair  return  on  its  assessed  value,  for  that 
cannot  be  done  at  once,  if  ever,  but  to  so  equalize  rentals  that  the 
charge  for  the  different  tracts  w^ould  be  proportionate,  according 
to  the  character,  quality  and  utility  of  the  land.  With  such  a  sys- 
tem perfected  and  well  established,  the  raising  or  lowering  of 
rentals  as  business  judgment  or  justice  demand  w^ill  be  a  compara- 
tively simple  proceeding. 

At  the  date  of  Statehood  there  were  in  existence — outside  of  the 
National  Forests,  where  the  school  lands  were  thereafter  administered 
by  the  Forest  Service,  and  exclusive  of  unsurveyed  land,  which  the 
State  had  no  authority  to  lease,  806  leases  on  school  lands,  cover- 
ing 264,993.34  acres.  At  the  rentals  then  being  charged,  these  leases 
were  yielding  $16,397.39  per  year. 

Reference  to  Table  X,  page  86,  will  show  that  during  the  annual 
period  from  ^March  16,  1913,  to  March  15,  1914,  the  same  land  earned, 
on  the  basis  of  the  rentals  charged  subsequent  to  Statehood,  a  total 
of  $32,148.48. 

The  Commission  is  of  the  belief  that  the  minimum  price  estab- 
lished for  strictly  grazing  lands,  of  $20  per  section  per  annum, 
cannot  with  justice,  under  present  conditions,  be  increased,  but  all 
grades  of  land  above  minimum  grazing,  and  particularly  agricul- 
tural lands  under  reclamation  projects,  should  be  subjected  to  higher 
rentals.  However,  the  difficulties  attendant  upon  the  securing  of 
tenants  on  developed  agricultural  lands,  at  rates  productive  of  an 
adequate  return  upon  the  value  of  the  land,  are  great. 

SCHOOL  LAND  LEASES. 

Subdivision  12,  of  Paragraph  4567,  Chapter'  1,  Title  43,  Revised 
Statutes  1913,  authorizes  the  Commission  to  lease,  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  five  years,  ''any  State  land  not  heretofore  leased,  or  the 
administration  of  which  has  not  been  otherwise  provided  by  law.'' 
The  Act  contains  special  conditions  to  the  effect  that  the  rental  to 
be  charged  shall  be  not  less  than  three  cents  per  acre  for  grazing 
lands,  and  for  agricultural  lands  not  less  than  fifty  cents  per  acre, 
while  the  leases  must  provide  that ' '  no  improvements  shall  be  placed 
upon  said  lands  that  will  accrue  any  rights  to  any  lessee  for  im- 
provements placed  thereon." 


5B  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Though  the  law  gave  the  Commission  authority  to  grant  leases 
for  "not  longer  than  five  years,"  it  was  deemed  wise, 
for  several  reasons,  to  restrict  the  period  to  March  15,  1915.  This 
was  the  date  to  which  permits  for  the  continued  occupancy  of  school 
lands  held  prior  to  Statehood  were  being  granted,  and  from  thv' 
standpoint  of  systematic  administration  it  was  obviously  of  ad- 
vantage to  have  all  leases  and  permits  terminate  at  the  same  tim.", 
not  only  saving  much  in  the  maintenance  of  the  Commission's  rec- 
ords but  permitting  horizontal  and  equal  changes  in  charges  at  a 
fixed  period,  should  such  changes  be  at  any  time  desired.  Further 
more,  in  the  absence  of  a  definite,  well-established,  permanent  land 
policy,  it  was  thought  to  be  only  proper  to  avoid  the  placing  f 
obstacles  to  the  establishment  of  a  policy  in  the  way  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  it  seemed  quite  possible  that  the  existence  of  a  consider- 
able number  of  leases,  extending  over  periods  some  years  in  advance 
of  the  approaching  session  might  interfere  with  the  Legislature's 
freedom  of  action. 

Taken  in  conjunction  with  the  clause  vesting  in  the  State  the 
title  to  such  improvements  as  might  be  placed  upon  the  lands,  the 
Commission's  restrictions  brought  forth  numerous  complaints  from 
prospective  lessees,  the  general  tenor  of  which  was  to  the  effect  that 
the  term  of  the  lease  was  so  short  that  a  lessee  could  not  afford  to 
place  on  the  land  more  or  less  expensive  improvements,  such  as 
might  be  necessary  for  his  business,  only  to  have  them  become  the 
property  of  the  State.  To  such  complainants  the  Commission  ex- 
plained the  reasons,  as  outlined  above,  which  induced  the  fixing 
of  a  short  term,  and  gave  .the  assurance  that  in  the  absence  of  an 
amendment  to  the  law  by  the  Legislature,  during  the  session  which 
will  terminate  almost  simultaneously  with  the  ending  of  the  lease 
period,  subsequent  leases  or  renewals  will  be  for  the  full  period  of 
five  years,  and  that  those  leasing  under  the  present  law  would  be 
entitled  to  a  preference  right  of  renewal.  The  practical  effect  of  this 
policy,  as  was  also  pointed  out,  would  be  to  insure  safety  in  the 
placing  of  improvements  on  the  lands  leased,  even  though  the  period 
of  the  lease  be  short ;  that  since  the  purpose  of  the  State  in  assuming 
the  title  to  improvements  was  not  to  confiscate  or  remove  them,  but 
merely  to  avoid  responsibilities,  complications  or  entanglements  re- 
specting them,  it  could  be  safely  assumed  that  the  improvements 
placed  on  State  land  by  a  lessee  would  be  there  at  the  termination 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  59 

of  his  lease,  and  the  privilege  of  renewing,  the  lease  for  a  period  of 
five  years  would  insure  him  the  undisturbed  possession  and  use  of 
the  property.  Technically,  the  title  would  be  in  the  State,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  land  itself,  but  practically  it  would  make  no  greater 
difference  to  the  lessee  utilizing  both  the  land  and  the  improve- 
ments, where  the  technical  title  to  the  improvements  vested,  than  it 
would  where  the  title  to  the  land  vested. 

With  a  full  explanation  of  the  purpose  and  effect  of  the  lease 
before  them,  most  complainants,  though  not  all,  felt  reassured,  and 
applications  resulted.  In  spite,  however,  of  the  objections  which 
some  prospective  lessees  advance  and  maintain,  the  Commission  is 
confident  not  only  of  the  wisdom  of  its  course  in  granting  these 
first  leases  for  a  short  term,  so  arranged  that  all  will  terminate  to- 
gether, but  still  more  so  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Legislature  in  avoiding 
State  responsibility  for  improvements.  While  it  is  quite  possible 
that  without  destroying  its  important  effect,  the  law  may  be  so 
amended  as  to  give  greater  assurance  to  prospective  lessees  that 
they  will  not  lose  their  improvements  unless  abandoned  voluntarily, 
the  Commission  cannot  too  strongly  urge  the  vital  business  neces- 
sities of  the  policy  of  absolving  the  State,  in  the  case  of  future 
leases,  of  responsibility  for  improvements.  The  troubles  of  this 
character  which  were  incurred  by  the  Territory  and  assumed  by  the 
State  will  be  a  source  of  annoyance,  dissatisfaction  and  loss  for 
years  to  come. 

Since  August  1,  1913,  when  the  Commission  announced  its 
readiness  to  act  under  the  authority  granted  by  the  Legislature,  478 
applications  have  been  received.  The  Commission  found,  however, 
that  the  greatest  care  must  be  exercised  to  prevent  conflicts,  to 
avoid  legal  complications,  and  to  safeguard,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
existing  equities ;  and  as  a  consequence,  176  of  the  applications  so  re- 
ceived were  denied.  The  status  of  the  remainder  is  shown  in  detail 
by  Table  XII,  page  88.  The  rentals  charged  accord  with  those  being 
received  for  similar  lands  held  prior  to  Statehood.  In  many  instances 
the  rate  will  be  found  to  be  less  than  fifty  cents  per  acre  for  land 
which  the  Commission  classifies  as  agricultural,  although  the  law 
places  at  fifty  cents  the  minimum  charge  for  agricultural  lands. 
This  seeming  inconsistency  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Commission 
classifies  as  agricultural  all  land    which  in  its  judgment  is  susceptible 


j60  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

by  reclamation  and  development,  of  any  of  the  forms  of  agriculture, 
whereas  it  is  assumed  that  the  term,  as  contained  in  the  statute, 
comprehends  only  such  land  as  is  immediately  available  for  farming 
purposes.  It  would  be  clearly  unjust  to  charge  fifty  cents  an  acre 
for  land  of  an  arid  or  semi-arid  character,  at  the  present  time  useful 
for  no  purpose  but  grazing,  lying  under  a  prospective  storage  reser- 
voir, merely  because  it  was  classified  by  the  Commission  as  agricul- 
tural, and  an  attempt  to  do  so  would  result  merely  in  failure  to  lease 
the  land. 

No  effort  whatever  has  been  made  by  the  Commission  to  attract 
lessees,  or  to  dispose  of  leases  on  school  lands,  partly  because  the 
short  term  for  which  leases  were  being  given  did  not  seem  to  justify 
it,  ^'ud  partly  because  the  more  important  duties  of  the  Commission 
would  not  permit.  The  permanent  establishment  of  a  land  policy 
should  include  provision  for  a  division  of  the  land  department  de- 
voted to  the  securing  of  lessees,  or  purchasers,  or  both  as  the  case 
may  be — a  subject  which  will  be  further  considered  in  the  discussion 
of  policy  and  the  Commission's  specific  recommendations. 


SALES  OF  GRAVEL. 

Under  the  authority  of  Paragraph  4570,  extending  full  power 
to  administer  the  lands  owned  by  the  State,  the  Commission  has  to 
a  limited  extent  disposed  of  gravel  contained  in  deposits  found  on 
school  lands.  The  procedure  has  been  to  advertise  the  sale  of  the 
privilege  at  public  auction,  under  the  provision  which  prescribes 
that  method  for  disposing  of  the  natural  products  of  State  lands,  at 
a  price  per  cubic  yard.  While  the  results  have  not  proved  alto- 
gether satisfactory,  owing  to  the  incompleteness  of  the  plan  for 
handling  such  sales,  the  experience  had  has  led  the  Commission  to 
believe  that  such  natural  products — perhaps  they  might  be  more 
properly  called  the  by-products — of  the  State  lands  as  stone,  gravel 
and  wood,  can  be  made  to  yield  an  appreciable  revenue. 

The  returns  from  gravel  during  the  preceding  year  were 
$216.64,  while  contracts  at  present  in  force  will  yield  about  $300 
more.  • 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  Qi 

SCHOOL  LANDS  WITHIN  NATIONAL  FORESTS. 

(From  report  of  the  Commission  of  September  1,  1913.) 

Among,  the  complicated  situations  which  have  been  adjusted  by 
the  Commission  is  that  one  caused  by  the  change  of  administration, 
under  the  terms  of  the  Enabling  Act.  of  the  school  lands  lying  with- 
in national  forests.    The  Enabling  Act  contains  the  following  pro- 
vision : 

"Sec.  24.  *  *  *  Provided,  further,  that  the  grants  of  sections  two, 
sixteen,  thirty-two  and  thirty-six  to  said  State,  within  national  forests  now 
existing  or  proclaimed,  shall  not  vest  the  title  to  said  sections  in  said  State 
until  the  part  of  said  national  forests  embracing  any  of  said  sections  is 
restored  to  the  public  domain,  but  said  granted  sections  shall  be  administered 
as  a  part  of  said  forests,  and  at  the  close  of  each  fiscal  year  there  shall  be 
paid  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  State,  as  income  for  its  com- 
mon-school fund,  such  proportion  of  the  gross  proceeds  of  all  the  national 
forests  within  the  State  as  the  area  of  lands  hereby  granted  to  said  State  for 
school  purposes  which  are  situated  within  said  forest  reserves,  whether  sur- 
veyed or  unsurveyed,  and  for  which  no  indemnity  has  been  selected,  may 
bear  to  the  total  area  of  said  sections." 

Prior  to  the  date  of  Arizona's  admission  to  Statehood,  all  the 
school  lands  (which  were  the  surveyed  sections  sixteen  and  thirty- 
six)  lying  within  or  without  national  forests,  were  administered  by 
the  Boards  of  Supervisors  of  the  counties  in  which  they  lay,  and  the 
change  of  administration,  as  here  set  forth,  caused  much  confusion. 

The  Commission  received  many  vigorous  and  apparently  well 
founded  complaints  from  the  former  lessees  of  school  lands  within 
national  forests,  setting  forth  that  the  Forest  Service  was  requiring 
the  removal  of  their  fences,  the  abandonment  of  many  of  their  im- 
provements and  the  restricting  of  the  acreage  they  had  previously 
held  under  lease.  Investigation  showed  that  this  was  being  done  by 
the  Forest  Service  under  a  strict  interpretation,  by  subordinate  of- 
ficials of  the  Service,  of  the  forestry  regulations,  and  without  full 
knowledge  of  the  moral  rights,  at  least,  of  the  lessees,  many  of 
whom,  by  compliance  with  the  orders  of  the  Forest  Service,  would 
have  suffered  severe,  and  in  some  cases,  ruinous  losses.  The  matter 
was  promptly  taken  up.  through  a  series  of  personal  conferences 
between  members  of  the  Commission  and  officials  of  the  Forestry 
Service  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  with  most  satisfactory 
results.  The  Forest  Service  officials  "readily  recognized,"  to  quote 
the  words  of  Forester  H.  L.  Graves,  "that  to  enforce  the  general 
regulations  respecting  the  enclosing  of  lands  would  work  a  great 


G2  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

hardship  on  citizens  of  the  State  of  Arizona  who  had  enclosed  lands 
under  Territorial  leases. " 

On  July  15,  1913,  Forester  Graves  suggested  to  the  Secretary 
of  Agriculture  that  he  authorize  the  continuance  of  these  enclosures 
on  condition  that  the  permittee  pay  the  usual  charge  for  pasture 
lands,  or  for  agricultural  lands,  as  the  case  might  be,  and  on  July  18 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  approved  the  recommendation. 

This  settlement  of  an  embarrassing  and  serious  situation  proved 
most  gratifying  to  the  Commission,  and  we  believe  to  the  lessees 
of  school  lands  within  national  forests.  , 

FOREST  SERVICE  vs.  STATE  ADMINISTRATION. 

In  view  not  only  of  the  new  system  provided  by  the  Enabling 
Act  for  the  administration  of  school  lands  within  National  Forests, 
but  as  well  of  the  existing,  division  of  public  opinion  as  to  the  wis- 
dom and  justice  of  federal  administration  of  lands  granted  to  the 
State,  it  may  be  well  to  discuss  the  plan  provided  by  the  Enabling 
Act,  and  its  results  as  disclosed  by  the  records  and  Commission's 
observation.  It  is  not  a  subject  for  State  legislation,  and  therefore 
will  not  be  discussed  from  that  standpoint,  but  from  the  standpoint 
of  information  to  the  public  and  for  the  possible  effect  of  such  in- 
formation on  Congressional  legislation. 

It  is  the  Commission's  well  considered  opinion  that  in  all  es- 
sential particulars  Forest  Service  administration  of  forest  school 
lands,  as  they  are  now  scattered  and  isolated,  is  more  efficient  and 
more  profitable  to  the  State  than  State  administration  would  be, 
and  quite  necessary  if  full  effect  is  to  be  given  to  the  national  effort 
to  conserve  the  Nation's  resources.  The  State  could  not,  without 
prohibitive  expense,  give  attention  to  the  school  fund's  valuable 
timber  lands  scattered  through  many  hundreds  of  miles  of  great 
forests,  nor  apply  the  rules  which  have  been  found  so  effective  in 
preserving  and  improving  grazing  conditions  within  the  forests. 

If  the  forest  school  lands  were  consolidated  in  a  desirable  body 
of  timber  they  could  be  administered  under  regulations  approximat- 
ing in  efficiency  those  now  applied  to  the  administration  of  national 
forests,  and  the  return  to  the  State  would  doubtless  be  greater,  but 
in  the  absence  of  Congressional  authority  for  such  a  consolidation. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  53 

the  advanta^res  of  the  present  system  of  administration  cannot  be 
disputed. 

By  the  terms  of  the  Enabling;  Act  the  school  fund  of  the  State 
receives  "such  proportion  of  the  gross  proceeds  of  all  the  national 
forests  within  the  State  as  the  area  of  lands  granted  to  the  State 
for  school  purposes  which  are  situated  within  said  national  forests, 
whether  surveyed  or  unsurveyed,  and  for  which  no  indemnity  has 
been  selected,  may  bear  to  the  total  area     *     *     *." 

The  estimated  area  of  school  land  within  the  forests,  surveyed 

and  unsurveyed,  and  for  which  no  indemnity  has  been  selected,  is 

1,397,357.59  acres,  or  a  little  less  than  one-ninth  the  total  area  of  the 

forests  in  the  State,  which  according  to  the  latest  and  most  accurate 

figures  comprise  13.318,690  acres.     As  its  proportion  of  the  gross 

proceeds  from  these  lands,  the  State  has  received,  for  the  benefit 

of  the  common  school  fund,  the  following  sums : 

For  the  period  from  June  20,  1910,  to  June  30,  1910 $      440.51 

For   the    year   ended    June    30,    1911 16,285.68 

For  the  year  ended  June  30,  1912 27,737.71 

For  the  year  ended   June   30,   1913 36,226.65 

Total    $80,690.55 

The  returns  for  the  past  year  have  not  been  received,  but  it  is 
believed  that  they  will  reach  $40,000. 

It  would  be  far  from  a  conclusive  argument,  in  support  of  the 
contention  that  the  returns  to  the  State  are  greater  under  Forest 
Service  than  under  State  administration,  to  point  out  that  at  the 
date  of  Statehood  the  school  lands  within  the  forests  were  earning 
a  total  of  only  $2,703.35  per  annum,  as  against  the  figures  above 
quoted,  for  there  are  now  four  sections  where  there  were  then  but 
two,  and  returns  are  now  being  realized  from  sales  of  timber  cut 
from  school  lands  in  common  with  the  surrounding  federal  lands 
where  prior  to  Statehood  grazing  leases  afforded  the  only  source  of 
revenue,  but  there  seems  no  other  means  by  which  the  State  could 
secure,  from  its  forest  school  lands,  a  revenue  equal  to  the  present 
returns,  while  the  school  lands  are  so  widely  scattered.  It  should 
be  borne  in  mind,  also,  that  whereas  the  State  is  now  receiving  a 
share  of  the  gross  proceeds  of  the  forests  equal  to  all  the  school 
lands,  whether  surveyed  or  unsurveyed,  under  State  administration, 
as  the  law  now  stands  in  other  respects,  its  revenue  would  be  re- 
stricted to  the  proceeds  of  surveyed  sections. 


64  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

There  is  only  one  other  point  to  consider,  and  that  is  the  ques- 
tion of  service  to  the  State's  citizens  residing  upon  or  making,  use 
of  lands  within  the  forests.  In  the  past  there  has  been  not  a  little 
criticism  of  Forest  Service  methods,  and  much  complaint  on  the 
part  of  stockmen  that  the  forest  regulations  entailed  unfair  and 
unnecessary  hardships  upon  them.  And  while  it  appears  that  these 
complaints  have  been  justified,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  it  now 
seems  to  be  the  general  opinion  among  stockmen  that  the  rough 
edges  and  errors  of  early-day  forest  regulations  are  being  rapidly 
eliminated,  and  a  much  better  service  enjoyed  by  stockmen  than 
was  true  when  the  range  was  free  to  all.  It  is  unlikely  that  a  con- 
siderable percentage  of  stockmen,  whatever  their  objections  in  the 
past,  would  now  exchange  Forest  Service  supervision  of  the  forests 
for  State  supervision,  and  still  less  for  no  supervision  at  all. 

OTHER  REVENUES  FROM  THE  FORESTS. 

It  is  perhaps  not  generally  known  that  the  State  and  the  coun- 
ties receive,  directly  and  indirectly,  forty-six  per  cent  of  the  total 
gross  receipts  from  all  the  National  Forests  within  the  State,  all 
expenses  of  administration  being  paid  by  the  federal  government. 
This  revenue  is  divided  as  follows:  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  the 
gross  receipts  of  the  forests  is  paid  to  the  various  counties,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  forest  area  in  each,  for  the  joint  benefit  of  the  com- 
mon schools  and  roads;  ten  per  cent  is  expended  upon  the  roads 
within  the  forests,  under  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture, 
and  about  eleven  per  cent,  as  heretofore  stated,  is  paid  to  the  State 
Treasurer  as  the  proportion  to  which  the  school  fund  is  entitled 
under  the  terms  of  the  Enabling  Act. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

CLASSIFICATION. 


65 


AGRICULTURAL 


Dry    farm    

Dry  farm  and  flood  water 

Dry  farm  and  pumping  

Dry  farm,  flood  water  and   pumping 

Dry  farm,  woodland  and  grazing 

Pumping   only   

Cultivated    by    irrigation    

Susceptible     of     irrigation     by     storage      or 

diversion    

Woodland  and  grazing 

Grazing  only  

Gravel  

Waste   

Total  


74,245.53  acres 

6,683.64  acres 

28,392.42  acres 

6,964.56  acres 

320.00  acres 

112,566.81  acres 

20,564.96  acres 

53,595.70  acres 

142,869.48  acres 

1,128,461.61  acres 

272.00  acres 

5,098.75  acres 


1,580,035.46  acres 


RECAPITULATION. 

Total  susceptible  of  some  form  of  agricultural 
development   

Other  classes,  not  susceptible  of  agricultural 
development   

Total   


303,333.62  acres 
1,276.701.84  acres 


1,580,035.46  acres 


WOODLAND 


Woodland,  dry  farm  and  grazing 

Woodland  and  grazing  

Grazing    land,    having    neither    woodland    nor 

agricultural  value  

Agricultural  land,  having  neither  woodland  nor 

grazing  value  

Agricultural     land,     having     grazing     but     no 

woodland  value  

Gravel 

Waste   

Total   

RECAPITULATION. 

Total  having  woodland  value  

Other  classes,  having  no  woodland  value 

Total 


320.00  acres 

142,869.48  acres 

1,128,461.61  acres 

24,684.69  acres 

278,328.93  acres 

272.00  acres 

5,098.75  acres 


1,580,035.46  acres 


143,189.48  acers 
1,436,845.98  acres 


1,580,035.46  acres 


66 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


GRAZING 


Extra  good 

Good    

Medium ..— 

Poor  

Grazing  and  woodland  

Agricultural  only   

Gravel  .... 

Waste 

Total   

RECAPITULATION. 

Total  having  a  grazing  value 

Other  classes,  having  no  grazing  value 

Waste   

Total   


31,782.62 

acres 

559,569.08 

acres 

433,855.01 

acres 

381,583.83 

acres 

143,189.48 

acres 

24,684.69 

acres 

272.00 

acres 

5,098.75 

acres 

1,580,035.46 

acres 

1,549,980.02 

acres 

24,956.69 

acres 

5,098.75 

acres 

1,580,035.46  acres 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


67 


DISTRIBUTION,  SHOWING  PRESENT  STATUS  OF  SECTIONS 

2,  16,  32  AND  36. 


TABLE   V 


ACREAGE  AND  VALUE. 


Acres 


In  National  forests   1,397,357.59 

In  Indian  reservations  1,746,860.01 

In  other  reservations 76,164.11 

Unsurveyed    and    unreserved 3,134,555.20 

Appropriated  by  U.  S.  entry,  subject  to  indemnity 168,707.62 

In  place,  not  leased 1,184,985.52 

In  place,  under  lease  or  permit 395,049.95 

Total    8,103,680.00 


TABLE    VI 

Counties  Acres 

Apache    229,129.79 

Cochise    204,694.49  , 

Coconino    94,167.49 

Gila    2,175.80 

Graham    81,560.30 

Greenlee  12,786.72 

Maricopa    143,127.27 

Mohave 88,565.03 

Navajo    215,817.18 

Pima   149,560.70 

Pinal   108,751.45 

Santa    Cruz 19,173.53 

Yavapai    125,571.43 

Yuma    104,954.28 


Value 


1  349 

624, 

160, 

2 

250, 

26 

1,830 
129 
333 
483 
458 
148 
303 

1,166 


,022.27 
688.00 
030.00 
,723.00 
248.08 
,534.67 
,894.70 
,554.00 
,085.61 
,153.00 
,056.00 
,435.00 
,465.46 
,616.00 


1,580,035.46             $6,266,505.79 
Total  value  of  school  lands  and  improvements 


Value  of  Im- 
provements 
$      14,361.60 
78,766.60 
3,540.00 

96,694.81 

5,594.35 

488,463.78 

79,337.08 
22,629.75 
10,660.00 
18,129.00 
14,879.00 
15,920.50 

$848,976.47 

$7,115,482.26 


68 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


o 

o  o  o 

o 

o 

o  o  o 

o 

la 

I>^  o  o 

d 

tr~ 

LO  CO  Oi 

o 

c3  be 

00 

lO  U3  <X> 

o 

&S 

CO          CO 

c<r 

o 

d 

O  t-  Oi 
■^   OS  Tt< 
U5  C-  <:D^ 

o  o       o  o  o 
o  o       o  o  t— 

C-  CO           tH   TJH^  00 

o 

€/9- 

TjT                                    V 

W) 

O  o  O 
CD  <X)  O 

1H  O  t- 
00  O  iM 

o  o  o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o  o  o 

6,246. 

20,941. 

390. 

6,232. 

337, 

38.404. 

1-i  i6  d  d  "*'  d 
o  t-  eg  cq  t-  o 

O0_^  U5  U5^  05^  CO^  05 
Tt*'  lO  «g"  CO  CO 
1— I 

pd 

bc;::: 

o  o 

o  o  o 

00  o  o  o  o  o 

00 

J9 

oo 

O  O  lO 

o  o  o  o  o  o 

lO 

pq 

U5  d 

00  eg  CO 

CO  c-^  d  TjJ  lo  oo 

id 

coco 

CO  CO  LO 

iH  lO  O  rH  tH  Tfi 

05 

O 

"*  lO 

00_^  LO  UO 

OO  rH  -^^  C<i^  i-\^  Oi^ 

U5^ 

6 

i-T 

d  eg  t-' 

CO*"  co"  co"  eg"  r-i  Oi 

00* 

tH          t- 

eg 

g 

^»' 

iH 

eg 

t-i 

•0§ 

o  o 

o  lo  CO 

o  o  o  o  o  o 

r^ 

^ 

w 

o  o 

.  o  CO  t>; 

o  o  o  o  o  o 

rH 

J 

d  to 

t-^  CO  00 

t>^  U5  d  d  id  U5 

co' 

o 

P3 

iHr*^ 

00  iH  O 

lo  ■*  CO  o  eg  c- 

eg 

<J 

iH  rH 

C^  •«*  OS 

lO  O^  Oi  U5  CO  to 

co^ 

iZi 

^ 

iH 

r-T 

id" 
eg 

o 

o 

ae- 

va- 

K 

< 

iSi^ 

o  o  o 

o  o  o 

O  lO  o  o  o  o 

lO 

1— 1  -♦-> 

o  o  o 

o  o  o 

o  t-  o  O  O  UD 

eg 

a«^ 

ta  S  S 

d  d  tH 

eg  t-^  d  id  id  CO 

d 

Eu 

oot^o 

CO  oo  o 

K5  lO  00  r-l  O  rH 

T-i 

^3 

73^ 

O^  U3  CO 

O^^tH  O 

eg  i>^  eg  co^  co^  eg 

r-i 

§ 

fl   C 

-*'■  o"  c<f 

CO       eq 

t-"  CO       rH  ro" 

d" 

?5 

tH 

eg 

CO 

H 

ee- 

«^ 

z/1 

m 


o  o  o 

O  O  O 

d  d  d 

CO  lO  lO 
lO  lO  CO 

eg'TjT 


Tt<  U5  O  O  O  lO 
iH  OS  O  00  CO  o 

eg  t^  lo  !>•  o -^ 

CO  lo  c^  <3i  eg  CO 


O 

O)    <D    fl 

CS   o   o 

ft  o  o 


-2  S  -g  J  ?  =^ 


Q.. 


S  fl  5  ^ 


03 


<:oQOOo!^s;^aHpLHM>^>^ 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION        g^ 

STATUS  OF  LEASED  LAND  AT  DATE  OF  STATEHOOD. 


TABLE    VIII 
APACHE  COUNTY. 

No.     Rental.  Acres, 

Leases   intact   date  of 

Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..  21        336.00       12,860.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit    

COCHISE  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact   date   of 

Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..     8        150.00         4,800.00 
Unsurveyed 56     1,050.00       33,580.60 

Leases     subject     to 
permit    

COCONINO  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact   date   of 

Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..l48     1,395.00       90,240.00 
Unsurveyed    27        270.00       17,280.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit 

GILA  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact   date  of 

Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..     3        119.50  800.00 

Leases     subject     to  , 

permit    

GRAHAM  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact   date  of 

Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..     1  3.15  80.00 

Unsurveyed    4  85.00         2,560.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit    

GREENLEE  COUNTY. 

Leases  intact  date  of 
Statehood   

C  a  n  c  e  llations:  Un- 
surveyed        2  40.00         1,280.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit    


No.       Rental.        Acres. 
75  903.50       40,959.30 


54  567.50       28,099.30 

187       3,558.50     113,664.34 
64       1,200.00       38,380.60 


123       2,358.50       75,283.74 

200   1,905.00  122,880.00 
175   1,665.00  107,520.00 


25    240.00   15.360.00 


4    224.50     820.00 
3    119.50     800.00 


5.00 


20.00 


87   1,227.55   16.739.99 
5     88.15    2,640.00 


82   1,139.40   14,099.99 

7    144.60    2,283.17 
2     40.00    1,280.00 


104.60    1,003.17 


70  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

STATUS  OF  LEASED  LAND  AT  DATE  OF  STATEHOOD. 


MARICOPA  COUNTY. 

Leases  intact  date  of 
Statehood   

Cancellations:   Forest..     1         40.70 

Leases     subject     to 
permit 

MOHAVE  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact  date  of 
Statehood  

Leases     subject     to 
permit   ^ 

NAVAJO  COUNTY. 

Leases  intact  date  of 

Statehood  

Cancellations:   Forest..  13 
Unsurveyed   2 

Indian  Reserves....     3 

PIMA  COUNTY. 

Leases  intact  date  of 
Statehood  

C  a  n  c  e  1 1  ations :  Un- 
surveyed         1  20.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit   

PINAL  COUNTY. 

Leases  intact  date  of 
Statehood   

Cancellations:  Forest..     1         32.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit 

SANTA  CRUZ  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact  date   of 

Statehood 

Cancellations:  Forest..     4       128.00 
Baca  Float 2        120.00 

Leases     subject     to 
permit 


283       7,126.76       32,428.59 
640.00  1  40.70  640.00 


282       7,086.06       31,788.59 


40.00         1,280.00 


40.00         1,280.00 


60 

830.10 

34,640.00 

179.00 

6,240.00 

35.00 

1,280.00 

- 

40.00 

1,760.00 

18 

254.00 

9,280.00 

42  576.10       25,360.00 

38  520.00       13,600.40 

640.00  1  20.00  640.00 


37  500.00       12,960.40 


32   1,015.70   13,102.21 
640.00     1     32.00     640.00 


31    983.70   12,462.21 


15    516.00    8,457.24 
2,560.00 
1,280.00     6    248.00    3,840.00 


268.00    4,617.24 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  73^^ 

STATUS  OF  LEASED  LAND  AT  DATE  OF  STATEHOOD. 


YAVAPAI  COUNTY. 

Leases   intact  date  of 

Statehood   77       1,368.30       40,560.00 

Cancellations:   Forest..  19        320.00       10,080.00 

Unsurveyed    4  88.00         2,480.00         23  408.00       12,560.00 


Leases     subject     to 

permit   54  960.30       28,000.00 

YUMA  COUNTY.  * 

Leases   intact   date   of 

Statehood   58       1,468.23       14,658.70 


Leases     subject     to 

permit   58       1,468.23       14,658.70 

RECAPITULATION 

No.     Rental.  Acres.        No.       Rental.        Acres. 

Lease   intact   date    of 

Statehood   1126     20.848.74     456,073.94 

Cancellations:   Forest..219     2,703.35     128.940.00 

Unsurveyed    96     1,588.00       59,100.60 

Indian  Reserves....     3  40.00         1,760.00 

Private      land 

grants    2        120.00         1,280.00       320       4,451.35     191,080.60 


Leases     subject     to 

permit    806     16,397.39     264,993.34 


72 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


(C 

ifl 

^U 

c 

in 

.a  o 

cc 

d 

a  ^ 

Ifi 

OS 

CO 

So 

lH 

in 

a> 

IR 

O        O 

oc 

o 

1-1 

CO       o 

oc 

CO 

,£3 

S 

oj     d 

dc 

d 

t-     o 

■^oc 

o> 

as 

CQ        « 

<H        IN 

coc 

o 

o    <J 

t>        CO 

t> 

00 

1 

^25 

IM 

i 

<       y 

oo: 

05        O 

di 

a> 

cot- 

CO         iH 

■^. 

oi<N 

cci      in 

t-^ 

■^  -^ 

05       ^ 

CO 

. 

r-IlM 

"CO 

1       ^ 

CO 

r^ 

CO 

oc 

1            '^ 

ji 

2    « 

o 

oc 

c 

CO 

dc 

1 

C6 

« 

M 

iHc; 

"■ 

S 

1 

d 

50        U5 

iH(N 

-* 

12; 

CO 

in 

be 

CO  (N 

00 

SI 

t-o- 

CO 

d(M 

N 

Oi 

1^ 

■<*r- 

CO 

■^ 

IC 

1 

to 

o     o 

CO       o 

oo 
oc 

1  o 

CO 

,ci 

£ 
c 

05       d 

dc 

OJ 

t-     o 

■^oc 

o> 

ea 

<5 

iH        (M 

CDC 

o^ 

1 

m 

t-'      co" 

t> 

00 

(M 

^ 

' 

OCD 

CO        O 

CO 

05 

CO(N 

CO         r-l 

OS 

■<* 

rH(M 

CO 

't 

iH 

K 

1 

>J 

OS 

coc 

(M 

fl 

t3 

o 

00  c 

C 

o's^ 

(M 

"c 

CQ 

^« 

1 

<» 

f^ 

d 

CO       w 

r-4(N 

u 

;?; 

CO 

1  in 

o 

'.  oo 

o 

:| 

o 

1 

73 

c 

o 

eS 

d) 

"42 

^ 

cc 

i  ^1 

0) 

M 

t3  c 

3 

a; 

fl'v 

PI  0 

.   CI 
^    .   cS 

• 

m 

-3  V 

-1 

m  ft.- 

.S..S5S 

«« 

•r 

"S 

•^  CO        1= 

-w  o  Qj  e 
a-;3  >  c 

•^3 

.s.s 

o    .a 

O 
ft 
M) 

'S 

£op: 

1  Si  a 
tfft(^^ 

J         0) 

o 

41 

ft 

15 '3  c 

op  o  n 

3          U 

d, 

<1 

Q«!2 

E- 

^ 

^ 

S^ 


P5 


NO 

(M 

00 

OCO 

TjtCO 

Tjtin 

CO 

O 

o 

ooc 

ooo 

o 

CO 

ooo 

CJ-^OO 

ocoo 

OS 
OS 

o 

OS        t- 

00 
(N 

d 

CO 

in^HOj 

■* 

^ 

(N 

in 

be 

oo 

o 

^  ^ 

xo 

00 

^o 

ooo 

00 

coco 

(M 

coco 

o 

H^ 

^ 

o  w 

►^    IK 


ooo 
oo_o 
<6<6<6 

O  TJ<QO 

iM  coo 


ooo 

C500 

0(MTJ( 


.2-* 

as 


CO  oi  a 

.«  ••  '^  ft 

.     §  «t3 

M  ft 

ft-n  >  O 


C.2 


0) 


d  S 


P30 


«  H  c^ 

<»  ^    OJ    '-'    S    i-i  - 

P2  ft  w  0  •-=  ;^  -^ 

p.           OJ  ®  o 


*-  2^     ^ 


iJHH     O 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


73 


2^ 


dig  y 


tco> 

ON 


.  1 

■"" 

« 

rfCO 

o- 

= 

C33 

IN 

(M 

^1 

^ 

I   M 


u  O 


Tjt 

oo 

X 

tr- 

oo 

u 

ee 

oo 

00 

■*CO 

< 

00 

(MrH 

CD 

(M<© 

u: 

OCD 

-rS 

cim 

■<*co 

« 

r-t 

^1 


00  00 

lo'o' 


".«    ■  C 


-^     .9 


^^i 


■2  o.« 


5  QJ^       «*-        « 

g    t>    <D  0;—    4) 


P-C  gTS 


O   D-.S   ft 

'^^  Eft 


2  "^  S 

0/  O   eS 


OS    ^ 


oo 

o 

C3  h 

050 

Oi 

■3» 

osm 

■^ 

in  00 

rt< 

Sp 

kO  00 

•^ 

H^^ 

^ 

(N 

■^ 

ooo 

Tl< 

t> 

ooo 

t- 

CO 

ooo 

ec 

u 

to 

tooto 

00 

u 

Oi 

OXNrH 

(N 

<0 

<c 

aoeif?o 

\n 

T* 

"-I 

t- 

OOO 

OOiO 
OOOO 
(MfHU5 

t- 

Tt  coco 

05 

o 

t- 

CI 

<N 

^ 

:!:i 


I 

i  *  d? 

OS'-'J 


he 


oso 

00  CO 


OOO 

ooo 

ooo 

cooco 

OXM-H 

iHCOCO 

»-• 

ooo 
q  q  q 
o'  d  in" 
cooo 


fa 

SB 

o 

2^ 
ia^ 

s  > 

05    ft.- 

a  fc-  * 

O) 


OP5 


ft"^  >  o  0-.-.  o, 

S  «  o  a>  CO-  S^ 
Ci'JZ  41  3  C  C 

tf  e-P3Q: 


4)    01    O 

QP3J5 


I  O  cS 


74 


REPOtlt   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


coo 

CO 

.Is 

05O 

C3 

03O 

CJ 

II 

COT)* 

t- 

iHiH 

03 

03 

10 

o 

OO 

o 

o 

OO 

O 

_, 

Ol 

o 

OO 

O 

o 

n  < 

•<* 
co- 

cccc 

CO 

CO 

in 

>5 

p^ 

(M 

H      - 
P5 

03-* 

te 

05 

0  05 

r-l(M 

03 
03 

CO 

03 
03 

CO 

CD 

OO 

c 

X 

^'^ 

OO 

1         "^ 

OO 

<= 

c8 

.       P5 

iH  cr. 

"* 

g 

^ 

I           '^ 

d 

^ 

tH  CO 

u^ 

^2^ 

'"' 

1  '^ 

6c 

OCD 

CD 

C    !- 

CCD 

CD 

g^ 

CiH 

iH 

(M 

■* 

Oi 

^^ 

i6 

1—1 

o 

.   OO 

o 

CQ 

o 

OO 

o 

U 

o 

OO 

o 

f-i 

,   o 

Tjto; 

CD 

a 

< 

■>* 

coco 

CO 

g 

CD 

CO 

»n 

1 

i-i 

IM 

m        ] 

OO 

O 
O 

o 
o 

'"^ 

03  t- 

O 

o 

■^* 

OJ 

CC 

CO 

tH 

mco 

<c 

^1 

cocc 

CC 

1 

o'S 

o 

^« 

T-i 

r- 

,* 

l=< 

o 

t-l 

tHCC 

vn 

;zi 

J-l 

r^ 

N 

1 

1 

;: 

'  to 

:l 

o 

1 

c8 

.2j 

ill 

■   c8 

i 

02 

1 

St 

S  be      « 

P.T3  1=1   p 

o 

a 

:  ^ 

J        o 

ft 

■Hi 

^gS;5 

.  c  c 

-d  S  2 

S  S  g  a 

P      pi      ^ 

)  crcr  P 

Sop: 

a);2  0)  r 

J  c_c  « 

:  '4Si 

■       o 

eu 

<J 

CP3^ 

^b 

U 

OO 

o 

1^ 
1^  ^ 

OO 

o 

do 

d 

' 

05  iH 

o 

h  o 

iH  CO 

in 

s 

1 

05 

'       1 

^ 

j 

O                   O  OO 

O 

1 

o 

C                   OOO 

o 

^■ 

CO 

6             d  6  o 

d 

X 
F 

CO        £ 

-*              co-^oi 

CD 

o     « 

Tj*              a  CD  CO 

CO 

5 

5  ^ 

in                      CO 

w 

i 

s 

:zi 

' 

Ph 

^ 

-^ 

;^  -^ 

_ 

— ^       .     . 

■  c 
c 

C5 

K     •- 

d 

c. 

« 

O) 

Cj 

03 

co' 

« 

""' 

'-I 

OOO 

1          o 

OOO 

1          o 

1 

ddo 

c 

;^ 

CO  03  CD 

ce 

03 

CO 

g 

d 

Oi                    O31HC0 

»o 

iz; 

1-i 

03 

OO 

o 

OO 

o 

do 

d 

Tl*0O 

03 

rH 

;h  c 

cSOj 

03  :3 

ir^ 

rH 

la 

O                          OO 

o 

rH 

to 

O                       OO 

o 

« 

g 

d                 do 

d 

^, 

O                        -tj*  03 

CD 

S 

< 

Ti<_                   CO  CO 

CO 

ea 

co"                               CO 

in" 

1 

'"' 

1 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

;z;     o 

o' 

d 

d 

"" 

S    « 

03 

•<* 

03 

03 

co" 

« 

<i1 
W     -d 

OO 

O 

^ 

OO 

o 

« 

o  « 

do 

o 

^ 

^« 

03  CO 
03 

^ 

^ 

1 



d 

tH                          t-I  CO 

in 

:z; 

03 

'O 

CO 

0 
o 

o 

^ 

1 

CO 

"S 

'5 

01 

o 

11 

CO                 '^ 

1 

c3 

.^    g'-S 

o 

QQ 

t: 

.S 

for    perm 
pending: 
account   r 
ending   ap 

a 

c3 

to 

i 

o 
ft 

be 

.s«"-II 

1^" 

0 

'S 

■S  °  "^  G  G^-^ 

n 

ft-^  t>  o  OJ-rH  P 
S  o  5  o  cr  cr  c- 

151 

>    2 

IS«' 

aj;r  oj  :3  c  c 

CO 

p2  ft«  Q  -^  -^  *. 

O 

(L 

Q.               0)    OJ    C 

«   O   cc 

^H 

P4 

<J 

e 

P3^ 

1^ 

o 

REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


75 


a  k 
So 


P3 


5S     5 


^  a  9  0"? 

o  a  ti  •<-!  c 


5fl 


'S    M    O 


>  ft- 


<  a;  w  o  w  u 


=   S3  «  S  ft 

OI  o  oj  o 


bo 


xn 

O 

<3 

:z; 

^ 

t3 

W 

% 

« 

g^ 


CO        -^ 

<u  O  a> 

•:3  o  d 


01  ft 
»^  ft 


f3  aj 

«  a  ?o  M 

2    (U^  "^  03    a; 

-»-»    ^H    U  TT    ra    m           >-' 

Uj  0^   ft               0) 


cc 


c 

O    ^H    O    C 
5x3   «"S 


C8-W  ^1  O 
01  O   c«  ^ 

h3EhHO 


76 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


100 

10 

be 

<©c» 

U5 

S^ 

CO-"* 

oc5 

°4 

iHCO 

Tl* 

2 

rH 

OS 

^ 

Tjl    ■ 

oin 

05 

lO 

OS 

t- 

ON 

q 

a; 

(N* 

dt> 

oi 

W     1 

■* 

NCO 

O) 

J3 

O) 

OM    1    0 

CtJ        " 

of 

NiH 

^ 

^ 

1    r-l 

!^ 

s 

«0  05 

lO 

W5 

W      -P 

(NCO 

«D 

CD 

(M 

■<l      'o 

d« 

cc 

« 

rH 

«      C§ 

«5»n 

1-1 

lH 

05 

1-1  oo 

o 

o_^ 

*.'« 

rH 

N 

(N' 

lOin 

0 

(NCO 

OS 

•S 

Is 

«D00 

Tj< 

;4 

^tf 

oec 

m 

c 

t- 

t-00 

(N 

^ 

cc 

00 

6c 

!0-<* 

0 

C    !- 

q(N 

CO 

co'r-i 

•<d< 

05 

XrH 

OS 

lH 

in 

rH 

oin 

ON 

Oi 

q 

1 

(M* 

oV 

OS 

"* 

<Nec 

OS 

cS 

cc 

oec 

0^ 

S 

cT 

<m'-h 

■^ 

^ 

»H 

CO 

t-05 

«D 

CO 

o> 

O     "C 

iC-t 

q 

q 

'"' 

-*'x 

cc 

m 

•^'" 

t-ltC 

00 

00 

'"' 

tf 

s 

MM 

0(N 

o'o 

OOrt 

5^   OJ 

fc 



o 

t> 

t-a 

(N 

:zi 

«D 

00 

; ; 

ni 

.  m 

0 

•  SS 

0 

»■ 

.0 

•d 

^ 

-d 

£ 

0 

(U 

v 

_c 

•   e8 

0 

cS 

;i 

43 

CO   P 

"2          ■« 

•  "3 

ai 

» 

.2  c 

■III 

■  c 

B 
^ 

f3 

s- 

-*^                QJ      C 

-c 

S5 

•3..S  « 

•  _, 

VH 

a 

*oo 

0          .      > 

IP 

be 

.H 

c 

c     1 

fl  o-t: 

.     EC     ;■ 

01  Cd  ^ 

m 

3-43  _>  c 
y  0  0  a 

io<S 

«t«C 

c  c 

cs-S  ;- 

c 

It 

a 

>        0)  0  a 

^H 

CU 

-< 

^ 

^ 

0 

M  (M 

in 

bll 

OOTjt 

<M 

.SS 

in-* 

d 

OS 

§1 

OS  OS 

qw 

OS 
N 

H^ 

r^  rH 

CO* 

^ 

Tf           0 

ooin 

OS 

-s 

33 

t-      q 

q  qN 

q 

* 

OS     d 

cooV 

OS 

fc- 

C         r-l 

(MCJCO 

OS 

c6 

I?; 

N 
«> 

cDoseo 

NNrH 

0 

■* 

CO 

CO      0 

CO 

OS 

K     ^ 

00 

00      0 

00 

r^ 

<i     ? 

d 

d      in 

in 

K     ^ 

t- 

t-        (N 

OS 

to' 

q 

OS 

q 

« 

ji 

1 

t-oin 

N 

-►^'C 

rH  q  (M_ 

■<# 

^ 

Is 

co'  in  d 

■* 

in  OS-* 

OS 

P2 

-* 

N 

d 

-^         r-( 

int-00 

1  =^ 

^ 

•* 

(M 

1  00 

M 

00 

0 

fi      «H 

-*« 

(M 

II 

oi  CO 

d 

-Mt- 

OS 

CO  rH 

CO 

•^ 

CO* 

co" 

OS 

in 

Tjt           0 

ooin 

OS 

<c 

N        0 

knoM 

q 

^ 
0 

(1) 

d     0 

oodt- 

OS 

rH          rH 

rH  (N  CO 

OS 

1 

-< 

0         t> 

rHOSeO 

0 

os' 

CJrH 

■* 

^                       ■ 

CO 
rH 
OS 

r-l 

^ 

0    0 

0 

g  -: 

■*     c 
06     -^ 

50" 

i^ 

Tt 

Tf           t- 

iM 

N 

CO 

eo 

eo" 

.c 

< 

c 

£ 

*^'* 

inoin 

c 

C8 

inqiN 

QC 

§ 

cdincc 

ec 

COOS'"* 

t- 

d 

N        IN 

cot-x 

1  1=^ 

55 

CD 

1  00 

73 

0 

0 

to 

^ 

'C 

0 

'§ 
0 

2 
rt 

a. 

^ 

Si 

M 

aj  p 

CO 

CO 

"aj 

a) 

« 

.2  = 

"" 

.2 

« 

u 

S 

(J2 

a 

"       '^ 

e3 

0 

t: 

'S 

1 

a 
'•3 

0  = 

T3 

C 
CS 

S3 

0 
a 

'Sol 

-M  c 

il 

0        S 

a; 

a  a 

ai  a)  c 

O)  0  « 

Ch 

^ip: 

P 

«^ 

e 

[i 

0 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


77 


«Olfl 

^ 

Is 

W'* 

o 

fOO 

'f 

a  > 

00  iM 

^  1 

'"' 

in 

t- 

o 

t~ 

o 

1                V 

m 

o 

CO 

•S       «^          ^- 

M 

00 

o 

OS 

o^ 

S     S 

!   ^ 

S^  := 

00  00 

to 

«c 

UiC 

in 

in 

2  w    g 

OOTji 

ec 

CO 

(Nifi 

00 

X 

«c 

13 

in 

m 

•fi             «' 

■* 

Tt 

S            ^g 

o 

c 

« 

(N 

iM 

d 

•* 

m 

^ 

oin 

in 

i       c^- 

«3t- 

CO 

l^rH 

OS 

2      ^^ 

•r; 

t- 

O 

t- 

-^  '               eo 

o 

»-^ 

1:           i 

ec 

o 

ec 

(N 

00 

o 

^           -^ 

OS 

q 

1 

M 

OS 

^ 

die 

o 

' 

■"t" 

rH 

« 

<J 

w     ^ 

«n 

IT 

C8 

2 

li 

1 

® 

; 

p^ 

d 

Tj* 

in 

!Z5 

•o 

o 

o 

X 

g 

-« 

^ 

t£ 

.2 

o 

es 

<D         C 

« 

^ 

OO 

c 

0        'i 

^ 

« 

II 

.2     1 

i-SS 

Is 

s 

""    w 

.:|i 

M 

fl 

C  — 

as        C 

*S 

;3   - 

t;  ••  c 

•  b< 

«*- 

T 

£  fc 

III 

■  ^"o 

=     -^ 

c 

IP 

1 

c 

i2§. 

:!li 

1 

ill 

11  &£ 

u& 

w  e-c 

c  £  c 
•^  W  -^  *. 

!•■£ 

a. 

a 

<D         CL    c 

0-   O   t< 

kl 

P- 

< 

C 

tfi^ 

^ 

E^ 

O 

Oin 

WJ 

bo 

o-* 

•^ 

^"o 

■<1* 

c  ^ 

X(M 

o 

in 

i:  o 

OS 

^A. 

in 

t- 

l> 

^ 

s 

eo 

o 

eo' 

ce 

CJ 

X 

o 

OS 

q^ 

g 

g 

1 

^ 

4. 

^  ? 

o 

o 

o 

T-l 

o 

o 

o 

OS 

w     % 

■<t 

•^' 

•* 

00 

X 

X 

to' 

■"* 

m 

1         ^■ 

.c 

■^ 

1        ^ 

s 

« 

Is 

c 

c 

tf 

w 

M 

1^ 

d 

■^ 

in 

Z 

be 

om 

in 

c  *- 

OtI* 

■^. 

^c 

TiJ 

X(M 

o 

■^ 

IS 

OS 

in 

l^ 

c 

t- 

OS 

»H 

c 

t 

CO 

c 

eo 

< 

OS 

X 

o 
q^ 

tS 

lH 

1 

02 

CO 

c 
c 

§ 

o 

q 

OS 

oc 

00 

X 

1© 

« 

<J 

fi 

W      ^ 

IT 

IT 

p 

OS 

c 

c 

^ 

^K 

CQ 

(M 

s 

d 

■«* 

to 

^ 

•n 

!    CO 

TS 

o 
o 

.  fl 

o 

^ 

-o 

.5 

o 

dJ 

c 

■,5 

*i 

10 

s      'Z 

* 

^ 

131 

00  §'c 

.'cS 
.  G 

t:2 

OQ 

•  ■  0"Z 

.1^  2:  c 

o 

•c 

"3 

bc«E 

lip 

5  s  si 

III 
•  111 

Isl 

■"It 

be 

s^: 

^^11 

g.2^ 
s  s  S 

crcrS 

i'J 

s 

ft>   c 

Is  a 

>  ?i 

gss^ 

tfC§Q 

S.S 

s3g 

o 

QJ   ft 

'S'Se 

<D   O   ee 

u 

C^< 

Qtf 

12: 

JEh 

W 

cb 

78 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


o  t- 

CDOO 


(M  O 

CON 


i-HOO 

Wr-I 

•7^ 

OiOi 

* 

(MrH 

T)<0 

« 

^V 

CO        CO 
CO        t> 

Tt  O 


00 

(N  t- 

SO(M 

W 

in 

tH 

■    O 

00 

^ 

i-H 

^^ 

" 

?.^ 


(M  O 

eo(M 


Tl((M 

T) 

r-IOS 

05tJ* 

fi^ 

rHOO 

«• 

T-(»ni 

00 

(M  t- 

COW 

(N 

o 

in 

iH 

o 

00 

^ 

iH 

rH 

N 

.;:;  >■. 


S  >  <u 


to  g-^ 
ate  > 


<1 


aj  O'er  ia 
S  fl  fl 

"  <u  o)  e> 


V  ^  o 

C3  _   PI 


Oi  O  eS 


bo 

00  in 

CO 

1 

inoi 

00 

Old 

oi 

1 

inTti 

OS 

1 

mm 

o 

CO 

a*- 

oTm" 

00 

rH 

r-4 

CJ> 

^ 

a>         oooo 

OS 

in          q  in  q  in 

in 

in 

0) 

03          SSdiei 

00 

u 

■^          Tjtcicco 

00 

o 

CO                    05_01  O) 

t- 

-g 

^^  ^ 

T^r         ^'^-Tir 

^4 

DQ: 

r-l         rH 

co 

cs    rb 

g 

!z; 

00 

00 

00 

in 

in 

m_ 

(M 

d 

oi 

oi 

1— 1 

in 

in 

m 

o> 

^      £ 

in 

in 

m 

iH 
CD 

w    « ■ 

(N   1  of 

oT 

OCO.QOTjf 

m 

0«5  CO  OI 

OI 

Ttl  '^  05  oi 

d 

1 

f-l 

Tj*  -"^'Ol  OI 

■^ 

c8 

tjj^th  q 

m 

S 

P5 

oo"     to 

in 

rH 

a>         rmninoi 

OJ 

6 

in                   rH        o 

00 

^ 

rH         ^ 

OI 

- 
be 

COrH 

■* 

c  ^ 

t-OI 

OS 

a  fe 
^1 

doo 

00 

00  CO 

-^ 

CO  00 

05_ 

Tl* 

^Ah 

dT- 

00 

T-H 

OS 

"-I 

OS      ooooo 

os 

irT 

CQ 

in      q  q  in  q  m 

in 

rH 

in      oi  d  in  d  in 

00 

o      t-ooooio 

00 

^ 

-< 

in        i-i        t-rHOJ 

l> 

M 

OQ 

OS                    «OrHTJ 

tH 

c3 

O 

CO 

iz; 

1 

rH        OI 

CO 

1 

!z;     t3 

CO 

CO        •<* 

t- 

CO 

1  i 

ec 

CO        t-^ 

d 

05 

IT 

in      oi 

OI         rH 

00 

CO 

cc 

(S 

co- 

CO 

iH 

OOSOO"^ 

rn 

,£3 

^1 

in  in  00  oi 

rH  cod:  CO 

OI 

00 

« 

QOOTltCO 

CO 

g 

t-rHO! 

00 

rjT        CO 

'  ,- 

"-1 

t-        (N  rH  CO  Tj*  OI 

Cd 

6 

O                    CO        O 

00 

Iz; 

OI 

•     •   CO 

Ti 

o 

o 

-g 

«  :§ 

o 
o 

0) 
c3 

°   ■";?, 

^ 

■S 

w       — 

■t- 

as 

'C 

.a 

H 

si 

% 

'r^    ••    U     a      •_, 

a 

OS 

)           Pi's    =J    PI      . 

)      -*^  o  aj  fl  c-c- 

o     .  > 

si'i 

«  '^  c 

1^^ 

1 

o 
p< 

Ml 

a 
'3 

'       P.r  >  o  « .2  "i 

)     oi'^  <s  ^  a  0 

131 

c       1 

pi  ftoi  Q ;::;  ;i:  +. 
^  p,^  ^  'S  "3  c 

2 

p^ 

<1 

PP3^ 

^b- 

^ 

^ 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


79 


o 

o 

bO 

o 

o 

.2fe 

d 

d 

S  ^ 

■* 

■* 

05 

1^ 

in 

o 

o 

00 

00 

00 

ca 

N 

X 

2J 

w 

OD        o 

CS 

cb    <5 

t 

£ 

«      ^ 

. 

2 

•<      ? 

■ 

o> 

to 

-^'O 

o 

o 

j: 

o 

o 

o 

^   0) 

d 

o 

cS 

P^ 

■* 

■<* 

S 

d 

CO 

CO 

^ 

CO 

CO 

C^ 

CO 

CO 

."    0) 

CO 

CO 

c^ 

S| 

a 

I'S 

in 

o 

o 

00 

00 

^ 

01 

(M 

(N 

£ 

u 

f- 

iH 

c8 

<< 

(M 

02 

05 

Cb      T3 

, 

r-l 

^25         « 

■^' 

s  ^ 

03 

>> 

U 

oj 

H      ^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

03 

1 

ij 

w 

ec 

« 

fa 

6 

CO 

CO 

^ 

-o 

o 

CO 

o 

(3 

JA 

.2 

t 

(V 

o 

c3 

TJ 

a 

^ 

o 

03 

o 

ji 

C»J 

w       S         •■■2 
Oi  0  S      ';3  eS 

r  .2  -2     5 .2 
§  S  M      So. 

1 

x 

S 
•s 

O  -^  "S     .  .    »H     ft 

a 

«  S  S  M       « 

C 
c3 

o    .  > 

»4 

a> 

a 

g  ^73  to  CO       ^- 

St: 
S  a 

be 

.2 

.x;S'«-S°?cc'TZ:j: 

c*  „ 

u 

.2«3o«.2«§g^^r 
1  o  (^  (§  p.;^  Q  •,::•:::  *- 

oo 
O 

aj                a     "  0-  oj  c 

0)   O    0( 

^- 

Pk 

<< 

e 

P3^ 

^ 

^ 

O 

!  CO 

i  g 

<! 


P2 


-53 


SB 
2i 


:^  a.i:: 
S  >•  « 


*^  o  aj  C  rt 

S  2  w  2  2 


S3? 


I  O   cS 


80 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


H^ 


Is 


.rt    01 


02       <3 


oo 
oo 
do 


coo 

iHC3 


COO 

oo 

rHO 

iMTjt 

OO 

oo 
do 

CO  (M 


OS 

"^    S"  * 
•  r^     Q)     O 

c  >  oj 

£op5 

0/ 

Cm 


^5 


01 


09  O, 

5  «  S  aj  a"  c  c8 
0)  ;5  4)  si  C  C5 
C§  ftW  Q  ■;::  -.2  -►^ 

^    P,  QJ    «    O 

<5         QMi^i 


.-3HW     O 


OOO  1  00 

2  a! 

toco        05 

in  iH      «o 

0   ^ 

(Mco      in 

U    o 

com      00 

li^f^ 

T-l 

1 

T-l 

1 

o      o      OOO      o 

O       O       OOO       o 

t' 

to 

O       O       OOO       o 

02       S 

;d      O      O  X  in      «o 

'^ 

C+J       « 

C-         00         rj<  CI  rH         CC 

^ 

5 

L-                   CO  ,H  05        m 

OS 

tf 

^   ^ 

Tj 

■rii        ■<# 

00 

in       r-t 

«D 

^ 

rH          Tf 

in 

o- 

Oi        CO 

(M 

x: 

« 

^:^ 

(M 

(M 

CO 

oooo  1          c 

coO  oo   1            oc 

^1 

-H  ooc 

^ 

^OTt^OC 

CO 

N       c^ 

m 

d 

>*         C<J         O  -1  Tt 

., 

1^ 

-i* 

•xo 

00 

^^ 

^QC 

(M 

S  «3 

05 

c  pf 

t-cc 

in 

■r)<  CO 

CO 

H 

05 

in 

O        O        0--1C 

"■ 

iH 

O        O       OOO 

o 

f. 

O        O       OOC 

o 

u 

■<*      o      (M  00  (^ 

to 

U 

< 

00        <M        05«Mt- 

CO 

sS 

Oi     CO     iH  iH  a 

»o 

^ 

^      ^ 

(N 

CO 

CC 

CO       o 

00 

05 

QC 

d     t> 

;?;     ^ 

t-     o> 

t- 

ec 

CO 

Tjt 

Ph 

oooc 

o 

00  o  o  c 

oc 

r* 

o'o 

rHOOC 

^ 

^ 

^^ 

IM 

oc 

CO 

d 

00      lo      eofM-^ 

(M 

;z; 

^ 

t3 

o 

o 

.£3 

CO      .-^ 

Ti 

^ 

0> 

C     .  cs 

O 

c3 

:3              O        — 

o 

1^ 

Receipts    for    permits    iss 

pplications  pending: 
Received    account    rental 
Due   on   pending   applicati 

elinquent 

elinquishments    and    cancel 

nt     nnnlipH     for 

X 
« 

3 
M 

(V 

a 

^P 

-J 

fr. 

^e 

l.&^ 

o 

p, 

be 

CO 

i 

i¥ 
■Hi 

Sop: 

P^ 

-^ 

Qpi;z 

i- 

^ 

ci 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


81 


J^ 


^O    1^1 

Is 

t-O       t- 

OOlfS        CO 

U 

CON        r-l 

■^ 

la 

o                    c 

>     o 

. 

Tl«                                            C 

rf 

o                    c 

O 

«    02        « 

«o                    c 

CO 

iH                                     0 

O) 

N 

N 

1    - 

Jz; 

1%    . 

^ 

«>c 

>        t- 

I- 

2  w    g 

®c^ 

1        00 

00 

kne*- 

00 

00 

eor- 

■* 

•* 

Si 

'         t) 

c 

o 

•o       "S- 

c 

o 

>H         tZ  (u 

If 

in 

eS 

« 

M 

(N 

o 

W                               C^ 

t- 

55 

CO 

CO 

??- 

• 

INOC 

o 

TJIC 

»o 

CI 

n 

CO 

■«1< 

ss 

ip. 

iH 

U5 

iH 

o                   c 

o 

OQ 

-^                   o 

■<1< 

2 

S 

o                   o 

o 

CO                            c 

CO 

08 
1 

«J 

,H                                00 

of 

1-t 

o> 

2 

QQ 

(MC 

N(M 

'^ 

-<!• 

rf'^       p5 

m»H 

rjt 

"* 

rHi« 

bH    -d 

o 

c 

brua 

Not 
Rec' 

CS 

C3 

<D 

fe 

o 

m                     (N 

t- 

^ 

m 

co 

'O 

o 

•  c 

o 

.  o 

t3 

JS 

TS 

CO     ."^ 

o 

e4  ' 

d 

JA 

"2 

(X) 

m; 

S! 

«t-i 

a 

CO 

o     •  > 

If' 
-J} 

o 

p. 

be 

iVi 

"  s 

*e  o  I-  c  c-^:z 

^■Z  >  =  oi .-  ^ 

nil  IP 

^11 

s  >  a 

CO 

CO 

a> 

a           «  a,  c 

4i  O   : 

C, 

<: 

QCS^ 

E- 

'^ 

■Ji 

t-o       t- 

.ss 

Oeo      CO 
cod      d 

a  ^ 

r^CO         Tj. 

|l 

^eo      ^ 

U5 

1 

1 

05 

•"> 

o 

ooo     o 

, 

^ 

OOO       T|< 

lO 

00 

N 

00  d  d     d 

'^ 

02       u 

CO 

OOOO        CO 
NM  00        03 

^ 

o 

co" 

Vi-T 

N 

(h 

r* 

OS 

M 

1 

5        ? 

t-      t- 

t- 

1 

o     q 

o 

•^ 

05 

CO     to 

CO 

05 

Co' 

Is 

ooo  1          o 

jS 

cooc 
Oioir 

CO 
d 

2 

tf 

pH05(N 

CO 

CO 

OS 

^ 

6 

o> 

Tj(lN(M 

t- 

^ 

t4 

CO 

be 

«>o      f 

fl  >- 

coco       (N 

SI 

•n  d     (m' 

05C0         CO 

-* 

1^ 

lO 

CO 

03 

lO 

c 

c 

o     o 

o 

1H 

sa 

1 

c 

o 

c 

o     o 
d     o 

d 

^, 

OC 

IM 

CO       o 

CO 

2 

c 

OS 

rH        00 

OS 

08 

c 

^ 

i-T 

(N 

1 

02 

""• 

t- 

t- 

c 

t- 

S 

a 

a 

OC 

co 

05 
CO* 

!z;    -« 

(M 

(M 

o 

in 

i  ^ 

OS 

■<<     ~ 

oo     o 

c 

Si 

coo     o 

CC 

« 

o  S 

^*d     >o 

cc 

^ 

^^ 

■<1<        (M 

CO 

S 

6 

a 

cc 

rJ4        iM 

c- 

^ 

(M 

co 

-O 

00 

O 

a 

o 

or 

.2 

"d 

^ 

rz 

C 

o 

01 

e 

c 

08 

o 

3 

•^ 

-5 

V 

C 

5 

1 

I 

c 

a 

1 

C8 

02 

"^ 

1 

'i 

'I 

u 
a 

C 

..  *■ 

o! 

a 

n 

t 

t 

b 

c 

C 
OS 

O   CO    > 
Ci         c 

a; 

c  - 

"C 

CO    >- 

2 

1 

> 

■>      i 

^\ 

i 

a» 

be 

03 

U 

a 

■'1 
> 

1 

c/ 

C 

'a 

o  a 

c 
a 

'  =  11 

So  c 

■^     CO      e 

131 

g 
0        c3 

P. 

'a>'aJ  c 

Oi   O   0< 

>     »:. 

^ 

-< 

(2 

KZ 

J^ 

Ec 

O 

82 


REPORT   or  TEfE  StATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


> 

I- 
Z 

D 
O 
O 

■_l 
< 

z 

Q. 

I 

DC 
UJ 

^ 

O 
XL 

O 

z 
z 

< 

UJ 

o 

z 
< 

CO 

I- 

Q. 

UJ 
O 
UJ 

oc 

i 

Q 

z 
< 


> 

coo 

CO 

U) 

«5t^ 

.     CO 

.Sfe 

nJcd 

II 

o  00 

OS 

CO 
35 

(M  t- 

o> 

uf 

^ 

O 

fH 

j; 

,-1 

<M_ 

.  o 

<M 

0) 

(M' 

d 

(m" 

X 

^H 

00 

'  00 

I   ^ 

CQ       o 

o> 

■^ 

T)< 

' 

O      ^ 

d 

oT 

<m" 

1 

1 

ci. 

in  00 

CO 

CO 

rH 

(NfO 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

P5 

idoj 

T)J 

-<* 

oo. 

o 

o 

__ 

(N 

c? 

i 

crT 

' 

i 

'"' 

^i'* 

o 

1         ■=> 

~~     1 

j3 

.i> 

1               L-; 

1 

CD 
00 

CO 

!         ^ 

d 

Tj* 

t> 

!^ 

^ 

>-( 

'"' 

r 

Tt   CO 

1  ^   ' 

L-  in 

1  CO 

.3  <a 

'i  o 

r-J  in 

1  t-^ 

IM 

(M  CO 

00 

05 

|f^ 

tH 

in 

1 

i-H 

o 

'  i-i 

rr 

(N 

o 

N 

1 

i 

(m' 

d 

(N 

00 

oo 

CD 

cS 

-< 

05 

•* 

rj* 

g 

(m" 

Oi 

ci" 

1 

tH 

1 

1 

^1   S 

t-t- 

IfliH 

t- 

r-l 

05N 

■'I*" 

r-( 

(N 

(N 

r-l 

<] 

I 

>. 

^ 

H       y 

CO 

_IC 

CO 
in 

c3 

o'u 

"in 

,  in 

!^(^ 

CO 

CD 

Q> 

P^ 

d 

•<lt 

t- 

rH 

!25 

iH 

tH 

CO 

; 

j 

T3 

] 

.    CQ 

C 

.    ti 

o 

i= 

-.2 

1 

-2 

c 

.  tl 

O 

eS 

t3 

^ 

-S 

CO    f3          <B 

cc 

.% 

a> 

OQ 

OJ  o        =1       —  t. 

.  « 

11     1     1^ 

J;  .  « 

c3 

8 

S-rH                             S     C 

to     CO 
Comm 

rmits 
ding: 
unt    r 

i-ncr       a 

«4H 

'c 

tc 

1^3 

o    .  a 

CQ    > 

its   issued: 

erpayment 
ceived    by 

pts    for    pe 
cations  pen 
ceived    acco 

111 

-2^  f 

'3 

g^tf  '^'t^p 

s.s 

03 

o 

*              <u  a" 

'q3'3  c 

OJ  6   a 

J       ;^ 

PM 

Cc 

;<j 

QP: 

i^ 

3E- 

ft 

}     O 

F  ^ 


oo 

00  OS 

cjco" 

(M  00 


^.  ^. ' 

N  d 
CO  00 
t-  00 


OO  I 
O  l> 

CO  d  I 

rHCD  I 


(M  CO 
(M  00 


o 

o 

rHO 

1-1 

o 

O 

(MO 

(M 

^4 

o 

O 

(MO 

<M 

o 

(M 

COX 

CD 

<^ 

- 

in 

CO 

(M 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

O 

[P 

o 

o 

00 

00 

o 

00 

00 

T)< 

(M 

^ 

o 

o 

CO 

tJ( 
(M 

H 

o 

OO 

O 

t3 

(N 

ot- 

Oi 

"©'w 

o 

oco 

CD 

»« 

Oi 

iH  00 

00 

5S 


Sec 


pi  ftps 
p. 


P.       StS 

0)  c  o"  tr 
?5  c  rt  "* 

<u  OJ  o 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


8a 


[ 

CO 

CO 

bO. 

«5 

CO 

.2  S3 

■ 

in 

in 

II 

t- 

t- 

CO 
05 

(M 

(N 

ui 

■^ 

r)( 

iH 

00 

<M 

■^ 

^ 

02        w 

O     <1 

■^ 

■<* 

1 

t-i 

ci 

coco 

to 

CO 

i-t 

05t- 

CO 

CO 

w     S 

OJOO 

t- 

»- 

(M 

(M 

50 

,0 

*.'^ 

^   <D 

58 

« 

'A 

O 

05 

Oi 

"^ 

OJ 

C» 

c  ^, 

■* 

Tjt 

CJ 

1 

o 

CO 

O 

CO 

OS 

^0, 

'"' 

>o' 

T-H 

IM 

(M 

^ 

s 

r-\ 

t- 

C8 

1 

05 

< 

m 

■^ 

■^'" 

OS 

'^    s 

COiM 

o 

o 

S   rt 

IM 

cc 

cc 

<j 

^1 

W        TJ 

2 

« 

P:^ 

!l 

o: 

OS 

■  "^ 

02 

o 

6 

o 
43 

•^ 

Ti 

■r 

p 

^ 

o 

5 

11 

DC 
DC 

"k 

8 

05 

02 

s- 

;j 

1 

i3  C 

CO   >■ 

H 

Oi 

o 

P. 

(>£ 

'S 

CO 
O 

111 

1 
'a 

t 
a 

00 

I 

c 

4 

■P 

III 

c  2  c, 

<S4 

^ 

< 

^ 

fii 

o 

OO 

O 

M, 

oo 

o 

.2S 

do3 

OS 

II 

oo 

o 

r-l  CO 

Tjt 

.n 

o; 

o             ■* 

Ti< 

iC 

O                    M 

CO 

d             t-^ 

t- 

u 

O                        -H 

^ 

02        5 

60                  v-« 

CD 

g 

Ci5      ^ 

CO* 

'* 

03 

!2i 

§ 

1 

o 

O 

o 

'^ 

o 

O 

o 

r-l 

W      g 

o 

d 

d 

o 

o 

O 

rH 

O 

co" 

-« 

o  ' 

1? 

o 

o 

X 

oi 

OS 

« 

o 

CO 

o 

ec 

^ 

d 

(N                    t- 

OS 

^ 

W) 

o 

~~^ 

fl  '-I 

o 

o 

§ 

d 
o 

|S 

in 

in 

Tjf 

03 

in" 

T)<           O 

Tf* 

tfl 

«     o 

<N 

^ 

t-:     d 

i 

-< 

en      CO 

CO 

CO 

1 

CO 
OS 

c 
c 

o     o 
o     o 

§ 

c 

d     d 

d 

CO* 

^     - 

o 

<5 

X 

W      ^.3 

o 

^ 

o"*? 

e8 

•7  ® 

d 

00        iH 

OS 

sz; 

i 

; 

-o 

o 

M 

o 

'fl 

.2 

"§ 

t 

T3 

!3 

o 

eS 

aj           o 

« 

j3 

ta 

S      ^"IS 

OJ 

M 

cu  P 

§1 

1      |§ 

00     gja 

1 

Oi 

o 

.9 

81 

.■S  ..     ft 

<«H 

X 

CO 

a  be*. « 

13 

o       a 

^ 

^1 

S  a  «  hn 

ft1§.£ 

c8 
CO  >. 

to  > 

III 

S5^ 

1 

bo 

— c   0)   c. 

S  ts  o       ^  ^  c 
O  U  5   QJ  c?  ^S 

Pi  ftK  0  '^  ^  *■ 

0 

s 

^       OS 

OJ 

"a               45    0.    C 

01  6  a 

PU 

< 

p 

Piiz 

&■ 

&^ 

O 

84: 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


OO 

O 

.as 

knoo 

X 

eo  d 

d 

^1 

1-1  ,-1 

(M 

« 

»oj 

O^ 

05 

rjd. 

'-' 

iH 

»n 

o     oo 

o 

o 

o     oo 

o 

o 

OS 

o"     do 

d 

d 

•g 

i^ 

•<*        CJ-"* 

o 

o 

2 

03 

o      coco 

o 

t)h" 

o 

x" 

1 

1 

Oi  r-l 

o     o 

o 

iH 

05  IC 

lO       o 

in 

o> 

n'c 

eo      d 

CO 

t-co 

O         r^ 

co-.t 

00 

X 

«0 

o 

O 

o 

^ 

o 

CO 

CO 

2 

d 

d 

d 

ee 

« 

w 

a 

iH 

§ 

N 

d 

■>t      ^  ^ 

X 

•* 

:z; 

•* 

i-O 

SiC 

== 

OiM 

X 

c  ^ 

050 

05 

CO  x' 

r^ 

(M 

05 

o> 

^^ 

i 

I  ^ 

»n 

iH 

c      o  c 

o 

00 

o     oo 

o 

d 

^4 

d     do 

d 

o 

Tj<        IM-* 

o 

o 

S 

-< 

o      cc  to 

o 

o 

S 

eo" 

TiJ 

x" 

1 

M 

tH 

<N 

CO 

5       ^ 

r-l(N 
05(M 

eco5 

ec      eo 
CO 

eo' 

rjT 

cccc 

t> 

t- 

P3 

>> 

«c 

CO 

(N 

U 

«D 

m 

O 

03 

to 

oc 

0) 

fc 

. 

d 

tH         r-lr- 

00 

■* 

Jz; 

Tt( 

»o 

•« 

O 

!  oj 

o 

-o 

-.2 

o 

^ 

^ 

a; 

c 

o 

eS 

3 

•  ea 

X 

w  c 

"J           "S 

-2 

M 

•^J 

.2    ;^| 

■  '5 

J 

aj 

C  y 

to        c'S 

Mi 

m 

S- 

"       a>  f 

"t: 

g  £ 

B«^' 

"S   •  * 

m 

.1 

■'O 

c        > 

u 

■   CS 

aj  -2'a 

1 : 

xJ  a;  !- 

ft 

c 
"c 

P  >  a 

nope 

;        aj^:  a)  r 

3   C   C 

J      tf  RtfC 

5  '^  S  *■ 

-     ^-2  ^ 

^ 

a- 

3^    Oi    C 

a;  c  ci 

s         t- 

-1 

CP2?? 

;  t. 

H&: 

i; 

in  in 

O 

«*. 

cot- 

■* 

.Sfe 

Tjieo 

X* 

ii 

.H  eo 

-* 

LO 

t-eo 

q 

05 

w^ 

rH 

in 

o 
o 

c      ooo 
o      ooo 

lo 
1  o 

00 

d 

d     d  d  d 

Q 

-g 

1^^ 

tc 

X        OCDO 

o 

03 

CO. 

00 

CI        -^  03  O 

i-T     CO      •<* 

x' 

(M 

1 

!^          i 

1 

in 

in 

'"'^' 

1         ^ 

.H 

^ 

CO 

O 

I       CO 

05 

«    s 
tf 

'+■ 

•4 

1       '*' 

t- 

?c 

■cc 

1       t~ 

d 

rH 

inoo 

in 

■*oeo 
i-dd 

CO 

«8 

OC0  05 

eo 
eo 

S 

d 

T)< 

C)        X  (N  X 

^ 

^ 

iQ 

in 

TT 

X  in 

CO 

qcD 

t-; 

II 

in  d 

■** 

t-  CO 

rj* 

Ttl 

t-(N 

q. 

05 

LO 

o 

C         OOO 

O 

as 

o 

o     ooo 

o 

£ 

o 

d     d  d  o 

d 

^ 

u 

■* 

-*     CO  coo 

o 

t 

< 

rlt 

CO        05  05  0_^   1    0_^ 

eS 

,_l 

■^ 

X 

^ 

5      « 

IN 

(N 

o 

1   O 

X 

X 

2 

o 

O 

o 

q 

05 

X 

X 

t- 

in 

'"' 

S     ^ 

CD 

IS 

^ 

d 

P3 

< 

1 

r-l 

(MCOOO 

in 

^ 

05  Tjj  q  eo 

CO 

W 

o  « 

oiddcc 

05 

u 

^« 

1-1  CO  CO  05 

CO 

<a 

(M 

d 

r-l         CM(NX 

-"it 

;z5 

■^ 

in 

o 

^ 

a. 

C 

!l 

1 

^ 
5 

03 

° 

'.2 

"a; 

J3 

OQ 

aj  e 

1 
5 

11 

a 

.s 

00 

si 

-III 

C 

i^ftl 

u 

o 
ft 
be 

.s 

'S 

c      1 

111 

C 
f 

"a 

HI 

c  a;  -  c 

S2£ 

— .  a;  c 

t 

«    O    «'    =■    ii    n 

o 

tu 

a 

;=  a;  3  C  C 

ftPiQ;^-^^ 

a- 

ft           a;  a)  c 

aj  o  c! 

u 

0, 

C 

P2:z 

E- 

fc 

o 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


85 


(a 

< 


050 
NO 

00  CO 


COIN 

00  cc 


OOJ 

ooo 

CC«D 

ec  to 


g    >    O) 


».5  C   M 


cc  CO        _ 

o  2  S  c  c 

U    C    ^  0.;   C^ 

OiZ;    QJ  S    C 

Q.  a> 


a- 

61? 


Oco   1  col 

ion.  1  Oil 

CJkf 

t^ 

lO 

IHIO         CO 

OS 

><  o 

CSQ. 

COlO^       tH 

o 

r-T        (N 

'jl 

C<J 

SOiO    1  o 

|i    i 

•^                   C5C10    1   l> 

a>             daJo  '  00 

t-             X  >»  M      in 

S:§      ^ 

1 

^ 

1    ^ 

z    - 

o     o 

O 

^.' K   y 

\n     io 

»o 

:-is  1 

<n'     im' 

N 

50         -O 

CO 

x: 

ccoo              to 

^ 

,^ 

0(M(M                    ^ 

=3 

♦-  ^ 

d  ■*'  rH                  irj 

►5  't 

r-lOM<                 ir> 

<5 

^^ 

t>l>rH                         lO 

) 

1   - 

o 

X 

t-<N  rH          X 

^ 

.-H                       iHM 

r 



be 

oco       CO 

c  ^ 

^q     -* 

di>     d 

X  O        X 

•^ 

1=^ 

OiCO        .-t 

OS 

1 

1 

m* 

r^        O        OO--'    1   O 

iH 

■■t      q     OMO     t- 

J5 

a) 

o>      d     odd     00 

CO      X     cacoM      lo 

,                ■«' 

't        X        ^^XCO        CO 

IS 

1 

CO 

o> 

)                ^ 

5   •; 

•^'"              f-Tt- 

Tj*' 

c 

o     o 

o 

co- 

< 

o 

OS 

X 

rn 
j3 

- 

coooc 

CD 

o 

-.DO'NCv. 

O 

=  c 

r^  d  -rf  r. 

t> 

^ 

12;  i> 

OCOOrJ 

o 

tf 

-HNt-r- 

M 

o 

cc      CO      CO  c^  ^ 

X 

^ 

!N                          (N 

m 

; 

i 

o 

a 

Xi 

o 

t3 

5 

TS 

c 

A 

§ 

s 

0) 

o 

JS 

02 

1   li 

•^      c.'" 

1 

§ 

a)  i2 

c8 

£ 

c 

cc        S.  & 

O 

"O 

*3 

S 

*-  ;■      p. 

OJ 

-  w     ^ 

Tl 

O   CO   > 

p 

c  c  t: 

c 

0) 

S6 

eeipts   for   per 
[cations    pendi 
ceived     accour 
e   on   pending 
otiftnt       

Ir 

c 

II 
.11 

«      o 

i  -Sis 

bO 

c 
g 

U^ 

'^'^^^^ 

o 

i 

a           aj  <u  o 

OJ   O   CS 

^ 

A- 

< 

Q 

tf^ 

►JFh 

K 

CJ 

86 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


be 

l>05 

col 

fl  ^ 

(M  O 

CO 

t-^QO 

"in  j 

Tl*rH 

col 

«.° 

COCO 

■^.' 

CO 

hPh 

co'in 

N; 

•H 

(Mi 

■       i 

iH 

o     oo 

©IT 

■^ 

CO      oo 

iMt-     1    CO                            1 

lO 

c« 

d     do 

dc^j 

CO 

T-( 

^ 

(M        !M05 

,TJ<0     1    Oi                              1 

« 

in      CO  CO 

.inc<j 

05 

02 

oT     co'co* 

'Co'lM 

M^- 

u 

CO 

T-IO    1    CD                          1 

C3 

•cij 

iH 

1    <M 

S 

It- 

55           

tr!           1 

t-05 

CO        .-H 

t- 

1 

^        -C 

CO  CD 

CO        05 

(N 

«       o 

(M'rH 

Tf      ci 

t^ 

H     (1 

rJC<* 

CO      CO 

Tjf 

iHCC 

-^         CO 

°°. 

rflM" 

co' 

cd" 

CO 

tH 

rH 

(N 

OOCT 

-    <3* 

^ 

-m'^- 

CO 

cooc 

q 

o 

:^f 

T-I 

1>0C 

00 

« 

CD 

Oiir 

T-l 

g 

o 

Tjt  cr 

CO 

Tt 

in 

d  I 

(M        OC  CO 

ooc 

!   CD 

^   1 

CO              rH 

^c 

1  <= 

in 

(M 

1    00 

be 

ot^ 

t- 

fl  ^ 

00  00 

q 

rH  oo' 

d 

<^CD 

CO 

=3p 

^."^ 

05 

H^ 

(N 

05 

o     oo 

osu- 

•*    .  ■■ 

M 

CO      oo 

<M  t- 

CO 

irT 

£ 

o 

aJ     (N*  d 

dc^ 

co' 

iH 

(M        (M05 

'^  c 

Q5 

.  <J 

in^     CO  oo_ 

lO(M 

a> 

^ 

CO 

d     cow 

CD  (N 

•^ 

g 

CS 

CD 

tH  l> 

CO     ■ 

e8 

Iz; 

T-l 

(M 

§ 

1 

(MO 

(M        O 

1      o 

C0  05 
t>  CO 

(M        VO 

rH         d 

•     00 

T-I 

a> 

CD05 

CD         CO 

05 

»H 

o^q 

■<f 

■^> 

rH 

r^ 

^ 

+»'^ 

Tfl 

occ 

t~ 

<3i 

^■s 

CD 

COCC 

■     00 

fe 

tf 

CO* 

rH  O: 

CO 

CD 

TlfCC 

CD 

d  — " 

c: 

■* 

[z;  ■ 

(N        COOO 

occ 

CO 

CO              .H 

^c 

o 

in 

CO 

! 

:  : 

•    ; 

.  o 

:^::, 

•   c8     •  1 

-S 

•   c3 

tS 

•  S 

o 

:i  cQ  '1 

CO 

.  o 

•  '3 

o 

•      ; 

M    fl 

•— <  ca 

•  c 

a> 

'  ®  . -1 

.2.1 

t» 

.   c3 

03 

:§  :! 
•s  .1 

a 
3 

O   o 

r    permi 
lending 
count   T< 
ding  ap 

•is 

•  CO   f. 

•  *^  c 

date  of 

ceipts    . 

received 

power 

PI  >> 

o  ^if  0 

.  G«H- 

<u         hr,     . 

qj  J2 

tii         c3   oj 

0^ 

itact 

sh    r 

not 

rninj 

ll 

13    CJ 

-S  ®  a>  C 

m   c*  QJ 
O    W    O    0; 

s 

5.B 

C  c  '^ 

a>  ,—,  ■'-'   r/3   c 
M  cS  G  CO  O 
c3  -M   f-   O^ 

X 

Ph 

oj'a;  c 

m  o  c8  ;^ 

P. 

< 

QK^ 

^^ 

[^c 

3    ; 

CO  CO 

CD 

a  f^ 

■^  Ol 

CO 

s^ 

■^  CO 

03 

CO  in 

OS 

«P 

(Nin 

o 

H^ 

05(M 
-03 

rH 
CO 

CO 

oofooin 

■^ 

CO 

o 

o  t-lnl> 

CO 

o 

O  C  00  rH  CO 

CO 

u 

t- 

-^  CO  COO 

a> 

S 

CO 

•^ 

t-ooco 

OS 

rr     ^ 

in 

ca 

TjTi-rd 

-<* 

C5 

j-t 

inw  t- 

CD 

12; 

r1   s 

05 

o> 

Tti 

CO 

Ti( 

-^ 

05 

^ 

o 

o 

■CO 

Ti- 

o 

o 

C!2 

CO 

w    p? 

d 

d 

(M 
OS 

OiHOOTjl 

-►^'^ 

>n  o  in  rH  - 

OJ 

^1 

in  rH  d  ci 

CO 

L-  in  t-in 

in 

t-co  CO 

in 

T-lj-tOi 

01 

y-l 

03 

d'. 

r)f 

t- 

rH  t-cjin 

CO 

^' 

CO 

03  in  o 

(M  ,      (M 

o 

00 

tH  t- 

X 

rt  ^ 

o^ 

Tt* 

Tt*'* 

CO 

t-t~ 

^ 

;  ■ 

OSrH 

inco" 

S 

l-<   T-t 

CO 

OS 

ooooin 

tJ* 

w 

o 

oooino 

CO 

£ 

00 

IM  O  05  rH  C] 

CO 

t- 

■^  CO  OS  o  o 

OS 

<i 

t- 

o 

o  t-  Ol 

OS     . 

CO 

in 

,—1 

t-XOJ 

-* 

o 
^ 

Tl< 

T-{ 

rH  rH  t- 

CO 

rH 

03 

M 

^       '^ 
%        % 

w    « 

rH 

tH 

o 

rH 

CO 

CO 

t- 

'  o 

05 

05 

■^ 

TlH 

O 

o 

o 

t~ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

OS 

in 

in 

in 

-1 

rH 

rH 

.^rd 

OOt-OOTH 

■  It' 

^1 

CDinOH 

■r}*. 

03  CO  05  05 

r)f 

r-'  CO  CO  05 

t- 

Ol  03  rH  tJ( 

y-* 

inrHOi 

CO 
rH 

Iz; 

CO 

CD 

O3CO00 

CD 

CO 

(M 

rHOOrJtO 

O 

rjf 

(M 

CO 

C     .   c3 


"I 

o  o 

CO  K. 
0  ft.- 

3  >  <u 


i2 ..  c  p, 

el's  "S  be 

«"   cc  §  « 

ft-^  g  §  c 


n.  CD  /^.  -^  •-! 


(^   ft  vt- 
'     ftp? 


-ai  O! 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


(0 

u 

I- 

z 

D 

o 
o 

>  ' 

CD 

(C 
UJ 

^     i5 

o     2 

Q.       ^^ 

to 

O      th 

Z  ^ 
DC  ^ 
UJ       1 

Q 

Z 
< 


Oi 


z 
o 

I- 
< 

_J 

?^     I- 


X 


9:     ^ 
o     ^ 


Total      Earning 
Power 


ooTj*coino>cimeot-ooQOin-<;)<o 

50  00^  CO         O^CO  1-t  rH  CO  Oi  iH  (M  (M  00 
CJ  t~  r-T        oT        OT        IN'rH  co'r^'co'in 


Not    Applied    for. 


Relinquishments  aiid 
Cancellations    .... 


Delinquent 


Due      on     Pending 
Applications     .... 


Received     on     Pend 
ing    Applications. . 


Receipts  for  Per- 
mits Received  by 
Commission    


Receipts  for  Per- 
mits Retained  by 
Counties    


Acreage 


No. 


r-l<C 

iH 

lO<D 

t-03 

^ 

Tj<  r-i 

CO 

kOCX) 

1  ^ 

eo-^ 

\ 

t^HtJ. 

occcoiNt^ocacoooocD 
q  Tc  00  -^^  CO  ^_  o  CO  m  o  co 

O  OO  »fi  rji  CO  ■^'  CO*  t-  b-  05 
■H  Tj<,CC  '-iCO-.COStOQOt-CO 

CO  m  CO      ^      CI  r-(  t>      01 


OO  o 

ooo 


iO(M 

OCO 

CO  CO 


Counties 


ooo 
Tj;  q  o 

CD  d  d 
o  -*  CO 


oo 
oeo 
do 
coin 

oxco 

OOOO 

osVd 

oeot~ 

CO  rH  05 

ooo 

00  CO 

in  CO 

Tt  t-oo 
COM  t- 


COOCO 
CO  r-l  T-l 
rHO 


ihimtji      osomooco   | 


OT)<ooa)t~C30oOfH-^oo 
eot-qoo5T-(lcoo•^c^^(^JOt:^ 
05  CO  d  d  OS  CO  00  d  d  d  (m'  t-  d  CO 
050ocO(N050c»oocococD'HOin 

0<NeO_^       0__0__t>  N  CO  03  Tjl  CO  O  CO 

00  w  ic      -"t  T-TiH  th  lo  pfc^i  TjToo  TjT 

Nt-H        rH        CO        Ni-lrH        CO  >H 


■^J<  CO  iC  tH  (M  in  M  CO  N  t- r-l  05 '*  00    ICD 

ioiN(M      CO      00      Tjteow      lo  in      o 


3  * 

.2 

C 

E 

<s 

c: 

ei 

c 

'I 

^c 

'5 

"<  ei 

1 

b£bO 
.5  (3 


88 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


to  ca  -^  Oi  -^oincocct-o  coco 

rHcococo  iHoocoinosot-knco 

rH  ci  05  «'  o  eo'  in"  tjJ  r>  ih  ci  ci  cci 

•<*T)<lO-^  (N(MTltcOiMCO(M    Tt  CD 


Oth        t-ocoooinmiOTfo 


O  CD  05  1-1 

r-  o  »-i  OS 

Id  OO'  CO  tH 


005co^'^<M>MO 
<MC0O"*®OCD»n 
CO  >»      -H  t- 


Is 


IB 


H   t3 


CO  t>  ■*  CO 

to  r-J  CO  t> 

6  co'  d  CO 

t-  CO  "*  m 


t-  b-  O  -^ 

CO  00  00  (M 
CO  00  CJ  O 


C0OOOCDOC005 
•^OOOt1<Ot-(CO 

d  d  d  d  d  d  oi  t-^ 

CDrl<TtOCD00m,05 
00    CO    CO    rj<    »n    M   co_^  o 

T-T         (m"  CO  'H  rH  O 


(N  <M  t-     Tjl  r-(  r-(  »n 


•^  lO  O  CD 

O  t-  O  CO 

ci  t)I  d  CD* 

00  Oi  CD  ■!* 

CO  -^  in  ic 

CO  ■^'"  (M"  cJ 


OOOOOr-lO-^ 
o  o  o  o  c  t-  ca  W5 
d  d  d  d  d  in  m'  d 

■<*TjfQ0Q0COt>(MCO 

coco(MOO>inTHCD 
m  co'  in  ci"  co' 


00  CD  ■<*  in 


eo  'H  t-  CO  '-' 


o  o 
in  o 


O    (M    O    CD 


CD  CD  Tj<  in 


CO    o 
ri<    CO 


_    o]t^t~oio:oDO 

rfooOQCOTj'TtLn 


O       O       ^H     ^3       CS 


a  ^-  c  >  s 

«         ^         C  j3      j;J 


■^C5  0g?iCJ:i'^Z&. 


>H>H 


i?^ 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  gg 


SALT  RIVER  VALLEY  SCHOOL  LANDS 


The  school  lands  in  the  Salt  River  Valley  of  Maricopa  county, 
and  particularly  those  within  the  area  of  the  Salt  River  Valley  recla- 
mation project,  occupy  a  unique  and  distinct  position.  They  com- 
prise the  most  valuable  body  of  school  lands  in  the  State  and  present 
the  most  serious  complications  willed  by  the  Territory.  The  task 
of  adjudicating  the  claims  for  improvements  on  these  lands,  com- 
plicated as  it  is  by  the  attitude  of  a  considerable  number  of  the 
occupants  and  former  lessees,  constitutes  a  problem,  or  a  series  of 
problems,  of  numerous  curves  and  angles.  Its  solution  has  a  direct 
bearing  upon  and  is  inextricably  bound  up  in  the  determination  of 
the  exceedingly  important  question  as  to  what  the  future  status 
of  these  lands  shall  be. 

Under  the  Salt  River  Valley  reclamation  project  there  is 
13,003. 59  acres  of  school  land,  which,  at  the  date  of  Statehood,  was 
held  under  lease  by  202  lessees. 

That  this  is  the  most  valuable  body  of  land,  of  similar  area,  in 
the  State,  and  that  its  careful  and  business-like  administration  and 
disposition  are  of  immense  importance  to  the  common  school  fund, 
for  the  benefit  of  which  it  was  granted  by  the  federal  government, 
is  evidenced  by  its  net  value,  which  separate  and  apart  from  improve- 
ments is,  according  to  the  Commission's  appraisal,  $1,257,426.70. 
That  "the  equitable  adjustment  of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee, 
residing  on  any  of  said  land,  and  of  the  State"  (See  Paragraph  4566, 
Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913)  is  a  consideration  of  mag- 
nitude may  be  sensed  from  the  fact  that  the  Commission's  appraisal 
of  improvements  on  the  lands  within  the  boundaries  of  the  project, 
held  under  leases  intact  at  the  date  of  Statehood,  discloses  the 
astonishing  total  of  $379,343.23.  These  figures  are  materially  in- 
creased by  the  addition  pf  1,496  acres  of  school  land  under  the  Tempe 
canal,  which  is  independent  of  the  Salt  River  project.  This  land 
is  worth  $146,975,   and   the  improvements  on  it   are   estimated  at 


fo 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


$42,363.65,  or  a  total  of  $1,404,401.70  for  land  and  $421,706.88  for 
improvements  on  school  land  in  Salt  River  Valley. 

In  this  estimate  no  account  has  been  taken  of  the  water  appro- 
priations and  privileges  appurtenant  to  the  land.  The  matter  of 
water  appropriations  will  be  considered  separately  and  with  con- 
siderable particularity,  since  it  constitutes  one  of  the  most  important 
and  delicate  issues  of  the  entire  subject,  and  upon  it  largely  hinges, 
not  only  the  measure  of  the  "reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessees  residing 
upon  any  of  said  land"  but  the  course,  as  well,  which  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  follow  in  effecting  an  adjustment  of  such  rights. 

HISTORY. 

Settlement  upon  these  lands,  which  were  reserved  for  the  benefit 
of  common  schools  by  the  Act  of  February  24,  1863  (12  U.  S.  Stats., 
665),  but  which  the  Territory  of  Arizona  had  no  authority  to  lease 
or  otherwise  administer  until  April  7,  1896  (29  U.  S.  Stats.,  90),  be- 
gun as  early  as  the  year  1870.  In  1867  work  was  instituted  on  the 
oldest  of  the  irrigating  ditches  of  the  Valley  still  in  service,  known 
as  the  Swilling  ditch.  In  1869  this  ditch  was  extended,  and  its  name 
changed  to  the  Salt  River  Valley  canal,  by  which  name,  as  a  part  of 
the  system  of  the  Salt  River  Valley  project,  it  is  still  known.  In  the 
following  year,  1870,  water  from  this  canal  was  delivered  to  a  small 
tract  of  school  land,  occupied  by  a  squatter,  and  the  acreage  of  school 
land  so  watered,  from  the  Salt,  Maricopa,  Grand  and  Arizona  canals, 
which  in  the  order  named,  were  constructed  on  the  north  side  of  the 
Salt  river,  and  from  the  Tempe,  Mesa,  Utah,  High  Land  and  Con- 
solidated canals,  on  the  south  side  of  the  river,  grew  steadily.  It 
is  estimated  that  by  1896,  when  Congress  authorized  the  Territorial 
Legislature  to  enact  laws  for  the  leasing  of  the  land  reserved  for 
common  schools,  not  less  than  4.440  acres  of  the  school  land  on  the 
north  side  of  the  river,  and  at  least  2,870  on  the  south  side  was  under 
cultivation  by  squatters,  who  for  varying,  periods  had  occupied  the 
land  without  warrant  whatsoever,  and  had  enjoyed  the  fruits  thereof 
without  the  payment  of  either  rental  or  taxes. 

From  1896  to  1910,  when  the  well  known  "Kent  decree,"  by 
which  the  important  question  of  the  priority  of  water  appropriations, 
affecting  all  of  the  lands  in  the  VmIIov  tliat  had  been  cultivated  with 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  9^ 

reasonable  continuity,  was  promulgated,  1885  acres  additional  of 
school  land — all  on  the  north  side  of  the  river — was  placed  in  cul- 
tivation and  established  a  certain  right  to  the  normal  flow  of  the 
Salt  river. 

By  the  Act  of  April  7, 1896,  heretofore  referred  to,  the  Governor, 
Secretary  of  the  Territory  and  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
were  authorized,  pending  the  enactment  of  laws  and  regulations  f  )r 
the  leasing  of  school  and  university  lands  in  the  Territory,  to  lease 
the  same  under  rules  and  regulations  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior.  It  is  not  known  definitely  whether  these  officials  ex- 
ercised their  prerogative  or  not,  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that 
they  did. 

By  an  Act  approved  March  18,  1897  (Title  65,  Civil  Code  of 
Arizona,  1901),  the  Territorial  Legislature  provided  for  the  leasing 
of  school  lands,  and  the  squatters  who  had  previously  occupied  and 
placed  improvements  on  them  were  given  a  preferred  right.  In  case 
they  failed  or  refused  to  lease,  and  others  wished  to  do  so,  their  im- 
provements were  to  be  appraised  in  a  manner  provided  by  law  and 
paid  for  by  the  lessee.  Improvements  were  described  as  being  "any- 
thing permanent  in  character,  the  result  of  labor  or  capital  expended 
on  such  land  in  its  reclamation  or  development,  and  the  appropria- 
tion of  water  thereon,  which  has  enhanced  the  value  of  the  same  be- 
yond what  said  land  would  be  worth  had  it  been  permitted  to  remain 
in  its  original  state." 

By  an  addendum  to  this  school  land  leasing  law,  enacted  in  1897, 
provision  was  made  that  "anyone  making  permanent  improvements 
after  leasing  shall  be  allowed  compensation  therefor  at  the  expira- 
tion of  their  lease,  or  anyone  having  to  surrender  their  land  before 
the  expiration  of  their  lease  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of 
this  section." 

No  method  of  complying  with  the  last  quoted  section  was  ever- 
provided,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  it  was  ever  invoked.  It 
appears  to  have  been  a  rather  misfit  addition  to  a  law  which  in  its 
other  parts  was  at  least  coherent  and  harmonious. 

The  status  described  was  maintained  until  Statehood,  when  the 
First  Legislature,  recognizing  the  necessity  of  an  "equitable  adjust- 
ment of  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  lessee,  residing  on  any  of  said 


92  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

land,  and  of  the  State/'  authorized  and  directed  the  issuing  of  per- 
mits for  the  further  occupancy  of  the  school  lands  held  under  Terri- 
torial lease,  pending  the  securing  of  data  and  the  formulation  of  a 
plan  whereby  such  an  adjustment  might  be  effected.  Of  the  Terri- 
torial leases  under  the  Salt  River  Valley  reclamation  project,  which 
comprises  the  Salt,  IMaricopa.  Grand  and  Arizona  canals  on  the  north 
side,  and  the  Mesa,  Utah.  Highland,  Consolidated  and  other  canals  on 
the  south  side,  and  under  the  Tempe  canal,  which  is  inedpendent, 
133  lessees  have  complied  with  the  law\  made  application  and 
secured  permits,  while  seventy-five  have  failed,  to  do  so. 

REASONS  FOR  FAILURE  TO  SECURE  PERMITS. 

Man,t  reasons  are  assigned  by  the  delinquent  lessees  for  their 
failure  to  compl.v  with  the  law,  and  many  views  are  expressed  as  to 
the  measure  of  the  rights  of  those  having  improvements.  However, 
the  generally  adopted  course  of  reasoning  by  which  the  lessees  ex- 
plain and  justify  their  position,  is  that  by  the  terms  of  the  Act  of 
Congress  authorizing  the  leasing  of  school  lands  all  leases  expired 
with  Statehood ;  that  the  State  Constitution  directed  the  Legislature 
to  provide  for  the  reimbursement  of  the  actual  bona  fide  residents 
or  lessees  of  school  lands  for  their  improvements,  as  prescribed  by 
Title  65,  Civil  Code  of  Arizona,  1901 ;  and  that  Title  65  of  the  Civil 
Code  of  Arizona,  1901,  provided  for  the  compensating  of  lessees  upon 
the  expiration  of  their  leases.  Therefore,  the  leases  having  expired, 
the  lessees  demand  the  compensation  provided  by  Territorial  law  and 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  and  pending  such  reimbursement  no 
new  contract,  even  though  it  specifically  recognize  and  contain  all 
the  guarantees  of  the  law,  will  be  entered  into. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  here  discuss  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of 
Congress,  of  Title  65  of  the  Civil  Code  of  1901,  and  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution, upon  which  the  lessees  rely  for  justification  and  support, 
nor  will  the  Commission's  interpretation  of  those  provisions  be  set 
forth  at  this  time.  The  present  purpose  is  merely  to  describe  the 
status  of  the  school  lands  of  Salt  River  Valley,  and  the  attitude  of 
those  holding  certain  equities  in  them. 

It  is  evident  to  the  Commission  that  the  underlying  motive — in 
fact,  in  many  cases  the  frankly  expressed  motive — of  the  delinquent 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  93 

lessees,  is  by  their  action  to  influence  or  induce  legislation,  not 
merely  designed  to  provide  reimbursement  for  their  improvements, 
but  to  authorize  the  sale  of  the  lands  containing,  such  improvements. 
It  follows,  logically  and  no  less  naturally,  that  the  plan  of  the  lessees 
is  not  without  anticipation  that  the  advantages  of  the  law  will  afford 
them  opportunity  to  purchase  the  land  upon  which  their  improve- 
ments are  situated,  at  extremely  favorable  prices  and  on  liberal 
terms. 

The  theory  upon  which  at  least  some  of  the  lessees  base  their 
hopes  and  aims  of  ultimate  ownership  is  that  their  improvements, 
under  the  interpretation  they  place  upon  the  Territorial  statute  here- 
tofore quoted  defining  improvements,  represent  the  difference  be- 
tween the  value  of  the  land  in  its  original  state  and  its  value  at  the 
present  time.  Following  this  theory  through  its  most  definitely 
marked  channel  it  is  found  that  those  who  hold  it  contend  that  the 
appropriation  and  maintenance  of  water  upon  the  school  land  they 
occupy  or  have  heretofore  leased  constitutes  the  chief  and  practi- 
cally the  only  source  of  its  enhancement  in  value,  and  that  .they,  i-i^ 
the  lessees  or  successors  of  the  lessees  who  made  such  appropriation 
or  application  of  the  water  to  the  land,  and  who  have  maintained 
intact  the  rights  accruing  from  such  appropriation,  are  therefore 
entitled  to  the  entire  enhancement  in  value  which  the  land  has  en- 
joyed. \ 

Though  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  desire  of  the  bona  fide 
occupants  of  these  lands  to  own  the  homes  they  have  made,  and  to 
which  through  years  of  labor  they  have  become  attached,  and 
earnestly  hopeful  that  they  shall  be  accorded  every  reasonable  con- 
sideration within  the  law,  it  is  needless  to  say  that  the  Commission 
cannot  accord  with  this  interpretation  of  the  statutory  definition  of 
improvements.  The  establishment  of  such  an  interpretation  would 
bring  results  far  without  the  bounds  of  reason,  and  spell  an  irretriev- 
able and  unjustifiable  loss  to  the  common  school  fund  of  the  State. 
Both  the  technical  arguments  and  the  natural  objections  to  such  an 
interpretation  are  too  obvious  to  be  repeated. 

METHODS  OF  WATER  APPROPRIATIONS. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  subject  of  water  appropriations  is 
closely  linked   with   that   of  improvements,   and   according  to   the 


94  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

claims  of  the  lessees  at  least,  must  be  accorded  consideration  in  con- 
nection with  the  adjustment  of  the  lessees'  rights.  It  will  perhaps 
conduce  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  situation,  therefore,  to 
present  a  brief  outline  of  the  processes  by  which  this  improvement,  if 
such  it  should  be  determined  to  be  within  the  meaning  and  final  in- 
terpretation of  the  law,  was  attached  to  the  school  lands  of  Salt 
River  valley. 

The  earliest  diversion  of  water  from  the  Salt  river,  of  which 
cognizance  has  been  taken  by  the  courts  in  establishing  the  dates  and 
priority  of  appropriations,  occurred  in  1869,  when  the  Salt  River 
Valley  canal,  started  in  1867  as  the  Swilling,  ditch,  began  the  delivery 
of  water.  The  construction  of  this  canal  was  closely  followed  by  that 
of  the  Maricopa  canal,  and  in  1875  the  two  were  joined  in  the  incor- 
poration of  a  single  company.  Other  north  side  canals  were  the 
Grand,  taken  out  in  1875,  and  the  Arizona  in  1883,  while  on  the  south 
side  of  the  river  the  Tempe  canal  was  taken  out  as  early  as  1870,  the 
Utah  in  1877,  the  Mesa  in  1878,  the  Highland  in  1888,  the  Con- 
solidated in  1891,  and  a  few  other  ditches  at  divers  times,  which  it 
is  unnecessary  to  mention  since  they  delivered  no  water  to  school 
lands.  All  of  the  canals  named,  beginning  with  the  Salt  in  1870, 
delivered  water  in  increasing  amount  almost  every  year,  to  lands 
which  by  the  Act  of  February  21,  1863,  had  been  reserved  for  the 
benefit  of  the  common  Schools,  although,  as  heretofore  stated,  there 
was  no  authorization  by  Congress  for  the  occupancy  of  these  lands 
until  April  7, 1896,  and  no  plan  of  leasing  provided  by  the  Territorial 
Legislature  until  March  18,  1897.  That  the  occupancy  of  school  lands 
without  authority  came  into  no  little  popularity  is  shown  by  the  fact, 
heretofore  set  forth,  that  by  1896  at  least  4,400  acres  on  the  north 
side  of  the  river  and  not  less  than  2,870  on  the  south  side  had  been 
placed  under  irrigation  through  the  medium  of  the  canals  named. 

A  search  of  the  records  discloses  that  the  methods  of  organizing 
and  operating  the  various  canals  of  the  Valley  varied,  and  this  is  oi: 
course  correspondingly  true  of  the  methods  and  means  by  which  the 
right  to  the  use  of  water  from  them  was  secured  by  the  occupants 
of  the  lands  reserved  for  common  schools. 

No  authentic  information  has  been  secured  as  to  the  plan  under 
which  division  was  effected  of  the  waters  diverted  by  the  Salt  and 
Maricopa  canals  from  their  construction  up  to  1875,  when  they  were 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  95 

incorporated.  It  is  likely,  however,  that  they  were  loosely  con- 
structed co-operative  organizations  in  which  settlers  largely  if  not 
wholly  shared  the  expense  and  the  benefits  without  the  exercise  of 
great  care  as  to  detail.  In  1875,  however,  the  Salt  River  Valley 
Canal  Company  was  incorporated,  and  the  plan  of  the  corporation  is 
made  clear  by  its  articles  and  other  records.  The  company's  shares 
were  fixed  at  a  par  value  of  $500  each,  which  were  distributed  among 
the  owners  of  the  Swilling  ditch  in  proportion  to  their  respective 
holdings.  It  was  not  for  many  years  that  the  treasury  stock  of  the 
company,  or  such  stock  as  may  have  been  transferred  by  share- 
holders, sold  as  high  as  par,  a  record  of  the  year  1882  showing  the 
sale  of  three  shares  at  $325  each.  Neither  does  it  appear  that  the 
ownership  of  stock  was  at  first  essential  to  the  securing  of  water,  its 
only  advantage,  aside  from  the  profits  it  might  earn,  being  to  insure 
the  holder  a  lower  price  for  water.  The  price  fixed  for  water  in 
1875  was  $1.50  per  miner's  inch  for  stockholders,  and  this  price  was 
gradually  increased,  running  from  $2  to  $2.50  for  stockholders,  and 
from  $2.25  to  $3  for  non-shareholders.  In  1885,  however,  when 
water  was  evidently  becoming  very  scarce,  a  resolution  was  adopted 
providing  that  water  should  be  sold  only  to  stockholders,  and  not 
more  than  eighty  miner's  inches  to  one  share.  This  was  increased  in 
the  following  year  to  100  inches  per  share. 

Apparently  up  until  about  the  year  1889  or  1890,  when  the  Ari- 
zona Development  Company,  owning  and  operating  the  Arizona 
canal,  construction  of  which  began  in  1883,  secured  control  of  the 
Salt,  Maricopa  and  Grand  canals,  water  was  not  considered  to  be 
necessarily  appurtenant  to  any  particular  land.  An  owner  would 
therefore  apply  it  to  any  land  he  chose,  or  if  he  wished,  first  to  one 
tract  and  then  to  another.  In  fact  he  might,  and  occasionally  did, 
rent  his  water  to  another,  and  despite  the  prohibition  against  the  sale 
of  water  to  non-stockholders  it  sometimes  happened  that  a  stock- 
holder would  rent  his  water  to  a  non-stockholder.  The  right  to  the 
water,  as  well  as  the  water  itself,  was  a  commodity  to  be  trafficked 
in  as  other  commodities,  and  peculiar  and  changing  conditions,  as 
will  be  hereafter  seen,  caused  the  raising  and  lowering  of  water  right 
values  in  a  wholly  abnormal  and  unnatural  manner — a  fluctuation 
which  is  impossible  when  the  water  becomes  a  fixed  appurtenant  to 
the  land. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  plan  of  operating  the  Salt  River 


96  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Valley  canal  seems  to  be  generally  applicable  to  the  Maricopa, 
which  consolidated  with  the  Salt  in  1875,  the  water  for  both  be- 
ing taken  from  what  was  known  as  the  ''Joint  Head,"  and  the 
Grand,  upon  which  work  began  in  1878,  and  which  was  designed 
for  the  watering  of    land  north  and  west  of  the  Salt  and  Maricopa. 

In  1883  the  Arizona  canal  was  begun,  and  was  operated  by  the 
Arizona  Development  Company  on  a  basis  quite  different.  The 
stock  of  the  company,  which  at  a  capitalization  of  $1,000,000  was 
highly  watered,  nevertheless  conveyed  no  right  to  the  delivery 
or  use  of  water.  This  depended  partly  upon  the  possession  of  a 
water  right,  which  the  company  sold  at  prices  ranging  from  $6.25 
to  $10  per  acre,  or  rented  to  those  who  did  not  care  to  purchase, 
and  still  more  upon  the  stage  of  the  river,  which  by  this  time  was 
being  called  upon  for  performances  beyond  its  capacity.  In  1889 
or  1890  the  Arizona  Development  Company  secured  the  control  of  all 
the  other  canals  on  the  north  side  of  the  river,  and  gradually  they 
came  to  be  operated  on  the  plan  adopted  for  the  Arizona,  the  stock 
in  them  being  retained  by  the  Arizona  Development  Company  and 
water  rights  being  sold  to  the  prior  owners  of  the  Salt,  Maricopa 
and  Grand. 

On  the  south  side  of  the  river,  under  the  Utah,  Mesa,  High- 
land and  Consolidated  canals,  which,  with  those  on  the  north  side, 
were  later  taken  over  by  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service, 
and  under  the  Tempe  canal,  which  was  not  taken  over  and  has 
never  become  a  part  of  the  government  project,  the  right  to  water 
was  based  on  canal  stock,  a  share  of  such  being  equivalent  to  a 
right  to  the  use  of  a  given  number  of  miner's  inches  of  water.  The 
shares  of  stock  were  transferable,  both  as  between  individuals  and 
as  between  the  land  upon  which  the  water  was  placed,  or  could  be 
rented,  until  in  the  case  of  the  Tempe  canal  the  rights  became  so 
valuable,  following  the  consolidation  of  all  other  canals  in  the 
Valley  under  the  government  project,  with  certain  quite  distinct 
advantages  accruing  to  the  latter,  that  the  owners  of  stock  be- 
came unwilling  to  separate  it  from  their  land. 

From  this  statement  it  will  be  seen  that  there  were  several 
methods  by  which  an  occupant  of  school  land  might  have  secured 
the  application  of  water  thereto,  upon  which  dependence  is  now 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  97 

placed  as  a  basis  of  reimbursement  for  improvements.  He  might 
have  been  an  original  participant  in  the  construction  of  a  canal, 
and  thus  secured  a  proportionate  share  in  its  benefits ;  he  might  have 
purchased  stock,  with  its  attendant  right  to  the  use  of  water,  or 
in  the  case  of  lands  under  the  Arizona,  purchased  or  rented  a 
water  right;  he  might,  as  many  did,  have  purchased  water  as  a 
non-stockholder,  at  a  slight  increase  over  the  charge  made  to  stock- 
holders, or  he  might  have  rented  a  share  of  stock.  All  of  these 
methods  were  in  vogue,  and  in  order  to  determine  in  each  case,  if 
that  should  become  necessary,  by  which  plan  water  was  originally 
placed  upon  the  school  land  under  these  canals,  the  cost  of  the 
method  or  the  value  at  that  time  of  the  stock  or  water  right,  as 
the  case  might  be,  evidence  would  have  to  be  taken,  and  a  more 
exhaustive  investigation  entered  into  than  it  has  been  expedient 
or  thought  necessary  for  the  Commission  to  make. 

In  connection  with  the  varying  and  fluctuating  values  of  water 
rights,  or  of  the  stock  which  in  most  of  the  canals  was  up  to  a 
comparatively  late  date  equivalent  to  a  water  right,  a  seemingly 
paradoxical  condition  appears.  During  the  entire  period  from  18('9 
to  1907,  when  all  the  canals  on  the  north  side  and  some  of  those  on 
the  south  side  were  taken  over  by  the  United  States  Reclamation  Ser- 
vice, there  was  a  constant  expansion  of  the  canals  and  steadily  widen- 
ing distribution  of  waters  of  the  Salt  river.  As  the  area  of  land  which 
each  canal  w^as  endeavoring  to  reclaim  increased,  the  securing  of  an 
adequate  supply  of  water  for  any  of  the  land  became  more  difficult, 
the  raising  of  successful  crops  more  and  more  uncertain,  the  business 
of  farming  fraught  with  greater  hazards,  and  the  water  rights  or 
water  stock  which  served  as  the  basis  of  distribution  were,  under 
the  prevailing  system  of  easy  transfer  both  as  to  ownership  and 
land,  really  worth  less  than  formerly.  Under  the  delusion,  how- 
ever, that  more  water  rights  or  stock  meant  more  water  the  de- 
mand therefor  increased,  and  market  values. advanced  until  in  the 
period  of  the  greatest  activity  in  stocks  and  rights  and  the  great- 
est stress  in  actual  water  conditions,  shares  in  the  north  side 
canals  with  a  par  value  of  $500  each  sold  as  high  as  $5,000  or 
$6,000,  and  in  some  cases  probably  even  higher.  As  will  be  later 
seen  these  values  deteriorated  to  almost  nothing. 


(j.S        REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

VALUE  OF  WATER  APPROPRIATIONS. 

This  abnormal  condition  could  not  maintain.  Dissensions  mul- 
tiplied, and  suits  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  priority  of 
right  to  the  flow  of  the  river,  as  appurtenant  to  the  land  upon 
which  originally  appropriated  and  untransferable,  were  instituted, 
culminating  in  1910  in  what  is  known  as  the  "Kent  decree."  By 
this  decree  the  order  of  priority  in  which  each  tract  of  land  in 
Salt  River  valley  that  had  been  regularly  cultivated  down  to  1905, 
or  to  within  five  years  of  that  time,  was  entitled  to  receive  the 
waters  of  the  Salt  river,  was  determined  and  established. 

This  able  and  vitally  important  decree  will  doubtless  prove  on 
great  aid  in  determining  the  merits  of  the  contention  that  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  right  to  the  use  of  water  on  school  land,  by  one 
or  another  of  the  methods  heretofore  described,  should  be  deemed 
an,  improvement  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  for  which  reim- 
bursement must  be  made,  and  in  the  event  of  such  an  interpretation, 
in  determining  the  value  of  such  improvement,  which  will  vary  ac- 
cording, to  the  date  of  its  initiation. 

By  records  covering  a  period  of  thirteen  years,  carefully  com- 
piled by  order  of  the  court,  the  normal  or  average  flow  of  the  Salt 
river  during  each  month  was  determined,  and  upon  that  basis  the 
acreage  susceptible  of  adequate  irrigation  arrived  at.  Thus  it  was 
shown  that  about  the  year  1880,  and  certainly  not  later  than  a  year 
or  two  after,  the  entire  normal  flow  of  the  river,  during  those 
seasons  of  the  year  when  the  flow  was  least  and  the  demand  great- 
est, had  been  applied  to  land  under  the  various  canal  systems.  In 
1880,  for  illustration,  a  total  of  55,663  acres  of  land  was  being 
served.  The  river  seldom  falls  below  16,699  miners'  inches.  In- 
asmuch as  this  flow  will  irrigate  the  acreage  given,  it  is  estimated 
that  up  to  the  date  named,  but  probably  not  later,  the  normal  flow 
of  the  river  would  supply  the  land  under  cultivation.  It  follows 
that  the  lands  which  could  claim  the  beneficial  use  of  water  upon 
them  at  a  date  not  later  than  1880,  and  were  and  are  entitled  to 
their  proportionate  share  of  the  normal  flow  of  the  river  up  to  the 
amount  deemed  by  the  Kent  decree  to  be  necessary  for  their  proper 
irrigation,  may  be  considered  as  having  valuable  water  rights — 
rights  under  which  they  are  reasonably  assured  of  ample  water  dur- 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  99 

ing  the  entire  season  for  the  growing  of  practically  any  crop.  But 
the  lands  upon  which  the  application  of  water  appears  to  have  been 
of  a  later  date  must  be  content  with  water  at  such  times  or  during 
such  periods  only  as  the  records  show  the  river  to  have  furnished 
more  than  was  necessary  for  the  uses  of  prior  appropriators.  They 
can  only  hope  to  be  cultivated  intermittently,  during  the  seasons 
of  high  normal  flow,  and  their  cultivation  likely  must  be  confined 
to  crops  requiring  the  least  amount  of  water.  Such  a  right,  it  is 
plain,  is  of  comparatively  small  value.  This  difference  in  the  value 
of  the  priority  of  water  disappears  to  a  very  considerable  extent 
in  the  case  of  lands  having  contractual  relations  with  the  United 
States  reclamation  project,  and  therefore  the  right  to  the  stored 
waters  of  Roosevelt  dam,  but  it  is  worthy  of  all  consideration  in 
connection  with  the  school  lands,  which  have  no  such  contractual 
relations,  and  the  dependence  of  which  upon  the  stored  waters  of 
Roosevelt  dam  may  fail  entirely,  as  will  hereafter  be  shown. 

In  estimating  any  value  that  may  possibly  attach  to  the  appli- 
cation or  appropriation  of  water  upon  school  lands,  therefore,  the 
date  of  such  appropriation  must  needs  be  considered,  and  it  seems 
clear  that  such  as  are  of  date  later  than  1880  are  of  little  value 
compared  with  those  earlier  than  that  date,  when  the  flow  of  the 
river  was  sufficient  for  the  uses  of  all  the  land  being  cultivated. 

ENTRANCE  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT. 

In  connection  with  the  history  of  the  lands,  school  and  other- 
wise, under  the  several  canals  named,  the  important  and  significant 
circumstance  of  the  entrance  of  the  United  States^government  into 
the  work  of  permanent  reclamation,  must  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. This  was  brought  about,  through  legislative  and  executive 
means,  by  the  same  conditions  which  culminated,  through  legal 
processes,  in  the  "Kent  decree."  Efforts  were  being  made  to  farm 
much  more  land  than  there  was  water  for;  dissatisfaction  and 
failure  went  hand  in  hand;  the  demand  for  the  development  of 
additional  water  was  constant;  administrative  difficulties  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  canals  on  the  north  side  of  the  river  brougjit 
their  complications;  the  Arizona  canal  heading,  by  means  of  which 
almost  all  of  the  water  delivered  by  the  north  side  canals  was  be- 


TOO  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

ing*  diverted,  washed  out ;  an  unusual  period  of  drouth  ensued ;  fields 
went  to  waste  and  highly  improved  farms  reverted  to  their  desert 
state.  The  United  States  government  was  petitioned  to  intervene 
and  save  the  Valley,  through  the  application  of  the  national  recla- 
mation law  enacted  in  1903.  This  effort  met  with  success,  and  finally 
the  United  States  Reclamation  Service  took  over  the  entire  system 
of  canals  on  the  north  side,  and  most  of  the  canals  on  the  south 
side.  The  chief  consideration  for  the  transfer  was  the  great  benefit 
that  would  accrue  to  the  lands  affected,  no  financial  consideration 
being  involved  aside  from  payment,  at  an  appraised  price,  for  the 
canals  which  were  deemed  to  have  a  value  in  connection  with  the 
new  system.  The  sums  so  paid  were  divided  among  the  stockholders 
of  the  various  canals,  whose  stock  for  some  years  had  been  of  little 
value,  nothing  whatever  being  paid  to  the  holders  of  water  righls 
or  to  the  owners,  occupants  or  lessees  who  had  or  were  ap- 
plying water  to  the  land.  Such  contractual  relations  as  they  may 
have  had  with  any  of  the  old  companies,  evidencing  their  right  to 
the  delivery  or  use  of  water,  by  whatever  process  secured,  whether 
of  original  appropriation,  purchase  or  lease,  were  swept  away — 
were  abandoned,  in  fact,  cheerfully  and  gladly,  in  the  universal 
hope  of  improved  conditions.  All  that  remained  of  the  old  order 
was  the  priority  of  right,  later  legally  established  by  the  *'Kent 
degree" — accruing  and  attaching  to  the  land  itself,  and  not  to  any 
individual,  either  owner  or  lessee — to  the  normal  flow  of  the  water 
of  the  Salt  river.  These  rights,  to  the  extent  only  that  they  were 
dependent  upon  the  river's  normal  flow,  were  and  are  recognized 
by  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service,  but  new  contractual 
relations  were  required  of  and  entered  into  by  all  users  of  water  un- 
der the  project,  and  the  contracts  so  entered  into  regulate  and  con- 
trol the  delivery  not  only  of  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam,  but 
as  well  of  the  normal  flow  of  the  river,  to  which  the  lands  under 
the  project  were  by  the  "Kent  decree"  declared  to  be  entitled. 
Thus,  whatever  of  a  monetary  or  market  value,  or  otherwise,  re- 
lating to  any  of  the  canals  which  afterward  comprised  the  Salt 
River  Valley  project,  or  to  the  delivery  of  water  by  them,  was 
held  under  the  ownership  or  control  of  school  land  occupants  or 
lessees,  as  well  as  of  the  owners  or  occupants  of  other  lands,  ceased 
utterly  to  exist  upon  the  advent  of  the  United  States  Reclamation 
Service.     Stockholders  in  the  canal  companies  were  reimbursed  to 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION       ^OJ 

the  extent  of  the  actual  value  of  the  canals  desired -bv  tha  I^jeclfe^-. 
mation  Service,  while  the  owners  of  water  rights  Voltintfiriiy  :•(.- 
.linquished  them  for  the  sake  of  the  advantages  which  would  ac- 
crue by  virtue  of  the  government  reclamation  enterprise,  thus 
finally  settling  the  matter. 

This  proposition,  then,  appears  to  be  self-evident — that  if  the 
lessees  or  occupants  of  or  upon  school  lands  have  either  a  legal 
or  just  claim  to  compensation  by  reason  of  an  enhancement  in  the 
value  of  the  land  caused  by  the  appropriation  of  water  upon  it. 
such  claim  has  no  reference  to  the  water  rights  or  shares  of  stock, 
purchased  or  leased,  which  were  done  away  with  when  the  govern- 
ment took  over  the  canals.  It  relates  entirely  to  the  right 
to  the  normal  flow  of  the  river  as  established  by  the  "Kent 
decree."  and  for  a  determination  of  its  value,  if  any  it  may  possess 
within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  goes  back  to  and  is  dependent  upon 
the  date  of  the  original  application  of  the  water  to  the  land. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

Upon  the  foregoing  statement  of  fact  the  Commission  bases  the 
following  conclusions: 

First.  The  theory  that  the  lessee  is  entitled,  in  the  way  of  reim- 
bursement for  improvements,  to  the  difference  between  the  value 
of  the  land  in  its  original  state  and  at  the  time  of  the  adjustment 
of  his  rights,  is  entirely  repugnant  to  reason,  to  justice  and  to  the 
intent  of  the  law.  Assuming  that  the  lessee,  as  a  bona  fide  settler 
and  occupant  of  school  land,  and  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  the 
law.  relating  to  reimbursement  for  improvements,  established  a 
certain  right  to  the  use  of  water  upon  the  land  which  enhanced 
the  value  thereof ;  assuming  that  the  right  was  established,  as  the 
law  contemplates  and  says,  ''after  leasing"  the  land,  and  assuming 
that  it  was  the  "result  of  labor  or  capital  expended  on  such  land,'' 
there  is  still  no  ground  for  the  contention  that  he  is  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  the  entire  enhancement  of  value  enjoyed  by  the  land, 
or  in  fact  to  any  as  such.  Under  the  circumstances  described,  his 
right  to  some  measure  of  reimbursement  for  an  improvement  within 
the  meaning  of  the  law  would  be  shown,  but  the  amount  of  the 


102  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

reimbiipsemeni  would  remain  to  be  determined  by  another  measure 
than  that^ef  "liiaearned  increment. 

It  would  not  appear  to  be  necessary  to  enter  into  a  lengthy 
discussion  of  this  point.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  purpose 
of  Congress,  in  reserving  certain  sections  of  land  in  Arizona  "for 
the  benefit  of  the  common  schools,"  did  so  for  the  definite  and  ex- 
act purpose  named  in  the  reservation.  Likewise  it  may  be  taken 
for  granted  that  when  authorization  was  given  for  the  leasing  of 
these  lands,  that  action  w^as  also  taken  for  the  benefit  of  the  common 
schools,  and  not  primarily  for  the  benefit  either  of  squatters  or 
lessees.  And  it  is  no  less  safe  to  assume  that  when  the  Territorial 
Legislature,  acting  under  the  authorization  of  Congress — which 
until  the  admission  of  Arizona  as  a  State  did  not  relinquish  its 
control  over  the  school  land — conferred  a  preferred  right  upon 
bona  fide  occupants  having  improvements,  and  gave  them  a  certain 
guarantee  of  reimbursement,  it  did  so  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  them  against  loss  and  preserving  their  just,  tangible 
equities,  and  not  with  any  idea  of  presenting  them  with  the  land 
or*  of  despoiling  the  grant  designed  for  common  school  purposes. 
Anything  permanent  in  character,  the  result  of  capital  or  labor  ex- 
pended, placed  by  the  lessee  and  bona  fide  occupant  upon  the  land 
after  leasing  the  same,  and  which  has  enhanced  its  value,  certainlj'' 
constitutes  an  improvement  for  which  the  lessee  is  entitled  to  re- 
imbursement, nor  does  there  appear  a  doubt  that  the  establishment 
of  a  prior  right  to  water  under  the  conditions  and  circumstances 
specified  by  the  law  would  amount  to  such  an  improvement,  but 
the  enhancement  in  value  enjoyed  by  the  land,  no  matter  by  what 
it  was  caused  or  how  brought  about,  unquestionably  belongs  to  the 
common  schools  of  the  State,  for  the  benefit  of  which  the  land  was 
granted.  In  short,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the  tenants  or 
lessees  of  school  lands,  in  addition  to  enjoying  the  benefits  derived 
from  its  continued  occupancy  and  utilization  for  a  long  term  of 
years,  at  a  nominal  rental,  without  taxation,  reaping  the  unearned 
increment  thereof. 

Second.  As  has  been  shown,  the  value  of  a  right  to  the  normal 
flow  of  the  Salt  river,  which  by  some  lessees  is  held  to  be  an  im- 
provement for  which  the  law  guarantees  reimbursement,  is  dependent 
upon  the  date  of  the  establishment  of  such  right.     As  has  also  been 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  IQS 

shown,  and  confirmed  by  the  "Kent  decree"  and  records  of  the 
United  States  Reclamation  Service,  a  right  established  later  than 
1880  is  of  comparatively  little  value,  while  a  right  established  as 
late  as  1896 — entitling  the  land  to  which  attached  only  to  the  normal 
flow  of  the  river  after  all  lands  placed  in  cultivation  prior  to  the 
year  named  are  satisfied — can  hardly  be  said  to  have  any  value 
whatever.  In  view^  of  the  law,  therefore,  which  provides  only  for 
the  reimbursement  of  ''anyone  making  permanent  improvements  on 
school  or  university  land  after  leasing  the  same,"  the  conclusion 
is  inevitably  reached  that  the  prior  right  to  the  normal  flow  of  the 
Salt  river,  attached  to  certain  school  lands  and  established  by  the 
"Kent  decree,"  cannot  constitute  an  improvement  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute.  None  of  such  lands  could  have  been  leased  until 
April  7,  1896,  when  Congress  extended  authority  therefor,  and  none 
of  them  actually  were  leased  until  after  March  18,  1897,  when  the 
Territorial  Legislature  provided  laws  and  regulations  and  defined 
the  rights  upon  which  the  lessees  now  rely  for  reimbursement.  Of 
the  9,055  acres  of  school  land  in  Salt  River  valley,  on  both  sides  of 
the  Salt  river,  under  the  Salt  River  Valley  project  and  the  Tempe 
canal,  which  by  the  "Kent  decree"  is  accorded  some  measure  of 
right  to  the  normal  flow^  of  the  river,  all  but  1885  acres  was  under 
cultivation  prior  to  1896,  the  earliest  time  at  which  the  land  could 
have  been  leased.  It  is  evident  that  an  "improvement"  placed 
upon  school  land  prior  to  that  date  does  not  come  within  the  scope 
of  the  law  relating  to  reimbursement.  Neither  is  it  sufficient  to  set 
up  the  contention  that  the  right  to  the  water,  though  established 
prior  to  the  leasing  of  the  land,  was  maintained  and  therefore  pre- 
served by  the  lessee,  since  that  was  done  in  the  ordinary  conduct 
of  the  business  for  which  the  land  was  leased,  and  under  that  clause 
of  the  agreement  entered  into  imposing  the  condition  that  no  waste 
should  be  suffered  upon  the  land  the  lessee  would  be  required  to 
maintain  an  improvement  which  had  been  already  established  and 
was  appurtenant  to  the  land  at  the  date  of  the  lease. 

If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  water  rigjits  established  upon 
school  land  subsequent  to  the  leasing  of  the  land,  have  a  value,  or 
have  caused  an  enhancement  in  the  value  of  the  land  beyond  what 
it  would  have  been  worth  had  it  been  permitted  to  remain  in  its 
original  state,  and  the  establishment  of  the  right  was  "the  result 
of  capital  or  labor  expended,"  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  such 


104  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

rights  constitute  improvements  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  for 
which  the  bona  fide  occupant  and  lessee  of  the  land  is  entitled  to 
reimbursement,  following  the  enactment  by  the  Legislature  of  a 
plan  therefor.  It  is  extremely  doubtful,  however,  in  view  of  the 
law  relating  to  the  use  of  the  normal  flow  of  the  river,  that  an 
enhancement  in  the  value  of  the  land  can  be  shown  as  the  result 
of  a  water  appropriation  of  such  recent  date,  and  this  doubt  is  in- 
creased by  the  proposal  of  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service, 
which  will  be  hereafter  described,  to  den}^  to  school  lands  the  right 
to  contract  for  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam.  If  this  proposal 
should  be  carried  into  effect,  and  the  use  of  the  stored  waters  should 
be  altogether  denied  to  school  lands,  the  exceedingly  brief  and  un- 
certain periods  of  the  year  when  lands  placed  in  cultivation  since 
1896  could  hope  to  secure  a  portion  of  the  normal  flow  of  the  river 
would  lend  no  hope  for  the  successful  farming  of  the  land.  On  the 
other  hand,  should  the  plan  of  the  Reclamation  Service  be  amended, 
and  the  land  admitted  to  contractual  rights  in  the  stored  waters, 
it  would  thus  be  placed  practically  on  a  parity  with  all  other  lands 
in  the  Valley,  and  its  value  could  not  be  enhanced  by  a  "prior" 
right  to  the  normal  flow  of  the  river  which  was  prior  to  nothing 
earlier  than  1896. 

Third.  The  Commission  believes  the  purpose  of  the  law  of 
1897,  and  of  the  Constitutional  provision  relating  to  the  reimburse- 
ment of  bona  fide  occupants  and  lessees  of  school  lands  for  im- 
provements, is  clear.  These  provisions  were  designed  to  protect  the 
lessees  residing  upon  and  improving  school  lands,  against 
the  loss  of  such  of  their  expenditures,  either  of  capital  or  labor,  as 
enhance  the  value  of  the  land.  To  this  extent  the  law,  is 
fair,  and  just,  and  proper,  though  its  continuance,  outside  of  the 
adjustment  of  existing  obligations  and  complications,  would  be  ex- 
tremely imprudent.  To  this  extent  it  should  be  faithfully  observed 
by  the  State,  under  a  plan  at  once  practical  in  its  operation  and 
definite  and  impartial  in  its  provisions,  which  will  accord  perfect 
justice  to  the  bona  fide  occupant  and  lessee  and  even-handed  pro- 
tection to  the  State.  There  should  be  no  effort  to  evade  the  pur- 
pose of  the  law,  by  raising  up  technical  obstacles  to  the  reimburse- 
ment of  occupants  and  lessees  for  genuine  improvements  which  have 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  ^05 

enhanced  the  value  of  the  land,  any  more  than  over-zealous  lessees 
should  be  permitted  to  gain  something-  at  the  expense  of  the  schools 
of  the  State,  to  which  they  are  not  entitled. 

PROPOSAL  TO  BAR  SCHOOL  LAND  FROM  STORED  WATER. 

The  status  of  the  school  lands  under  the  Salt  River  Valley 
project,  with  respect  to  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam,  to 
which  reference  has  heretofore  been  made,  is  a  subject  for  seriou- 
consideration  in  arriving  at  a  determination  of  the  plan  or  policy 
under  which  the  lands  shall  be  hereafter  administered. 

Section  5  of  the  Act  of  June  17,  1902 — the  so-called  Reclama- 
tion Act  (32  U.  S.  Stats.,  389),  provides: 

"No  right  to  the  use  of  water  for  land  in  private  owner- 
ship shall  be  sold  for  a  tract  exceeding  160  acres  to  any  one 
landowner." 

With  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  this  clause  as  a  basis,  the 
belief  is  held  by  many  that  the  reclamation  law  would  automatically 
bar  the  State,  owning,  lands  far  in  excess  of  160  acres,  from  partici- 
pation in  the  benefits  of  the  Salt    River  Valley  project. 

That  this  is  not  true  would  seem  to  be  sufficiently  disproven 
by  the  wording  of  the  clause  above  quoted,  which  clearly  refers 
only  to  lands  held  in  private  ownership.  Confirmation  of  this  in- 
terpretation is  contained  in  the  Manual  of  the  Reclamation  Service, 
wherein  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  under  date  of  May  12,  1909, 
promulgates  the  following  opinion: 

"Agencies  of  the  State  Government  are  entitled  to  become 
takers  of  water  under  the  reclamation  projects  upon  an  equit- 
able contribution  of  the  cost  of  the  project  to  the  lands  bene- 
fitted. The  limitations  of  the  Reclamation  Act  respecting  resi- 
dence of  owners  and  area  of  land  of  one  owner  that  may  be. 
served  from  reclamation  works,  have  no  reference  to  State 
agencies." 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  barrier,  so  far  as  the 
Reclamation  Act  itself  is  concerned,  to  the  acquirement  by  the  State 
of  rights,  for  the  school  lands  under  the  Salt  River  Yalley  project, 
to  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam. 


106  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Another  barrier,  equally  as  effective  as  the  most  rigid  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  could  be  has,  however,  arisen.  As  a  preliminary 
to  the  formal  opening  of  the  Salt  River  Valley  project  it  was  found 
advisable  to  determine  the  acreage  of  land  that  could  be  properly 
supplied  with  water,  and  to  define  the  exact  tracts  to  be  irrigated. 
To  this  end  a  Board  of  Survey,  composed  of  F.  W.  Hanna,  chairman ; 
AV.  A.  Farish  and  Frank  H.  Parker,  was  appointed,  with  instructions 
to  ascertain  the  acreage  that  could  he  supplied  under  the  water 
supply  as  developed,  and  the  particular  lands  having,  the  greatest 
right  to  such  water. 

Under  date  of  January  9,  1914,  a  recommendation  of  the  Board 
of  Survey  to  limit  the  irrigable  acreage  of  the  Salt  River  Valley 
project  to  175,000  acres  was  approved  by  the  Reclamation  Commis- 
sion, and  the  following  instruction  issued : 

"In  selecting  lands  for  the  project,  preference  should  be 
given  to  the  lands  in  the  following  named  order: 

(1)  Class  A  lands,  in  holdings  of  160  acres  or  less  per 
owner ; 

(2)  Cultivated  Class  B  lands,  in  holdings  of  160  acres  or 
less  per  owner; 

(3)  Cultivated  Class  C  lands,  in  holdings  of  40  acres  or 
less  per  owner,  giving  preference  to  those  who  have  no  Class 
B  lands   included." 

It  will  be  seen  that  under  this  instruction,  school  lands,  whether 
of  Class  A,  B  or  C,  being  held  under  State  ownership  in  an  amount 
far  in  excess  of  160  acres,  were  effectually  disbarred  from  inclusion 
within  the  project,  unless  it  should  have  been  found  that  the  total 
of  the  lands  to  which  preference  was  given  would  not  amount  to  tho 
acreage  limit  fixed. 

The  result  of  the  Board's  deliberations  appears  in  the  following 
extract  from  its  final  report  to  the  Reclamation  Commission : 

"It  will  be  noted  that  there  are  11,030  acres  of  State  school 
lands  now  under  cultivation  on  the  project.  According  to  the 
rules  laid  down  and  approved  by  the  Department,  if  legislation 
shall  be  obtained  empowering  the  State  to  sell  these  lands,  the 
Water  Users'  Association  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Reclama- 
tion Service  by  means  of  wells  or  otherwise  will  develop  sufficient 
additional  water  to  include  these  lands  in  the  project.  These 
lands  have  already  been  furnished  water  from  the  Salt  River 
.  project  partly  through  established  rights  under  the  Kent  de- 
cree and  partly  through  water  rental  contracts  for  flood  and 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION       ^QT 

reservoir  waters.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Survey  that 
in  case  the  Water  Users'  Association  fails  to  develop  a  suffi- 
cient supply  of  water  for  these  lands  promptly  the  United  States 
should  undertake  to  do  so  in  case  appropriate  State  legislation 
is  enacted.  When  such  legislation  is  enacted  by  the  State  and 
when  such  additional  water  is  developed  either  by  the  Associa- 
tion or  by  the  United  States,  it  is  understood  that  the  project 
shall  consist  of  182,978.71  acres  of  lands  under  the  Reclamation 
Act  and  of  8,324  acres  of  lands  classified  as  townsites,  making 
a  total  of  191,302.71  acres." 

The   Reclamation   Commission's   decision   and  recommendation 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  was  as  follows : 


"In  this  tabulation  the  State  school  lands  are  shown  separ- 
ately because  of  the  fact  that  these  lands  cannot  be  subscribed 
to  the  project  under  the  terms  of  the  Reclamation  Act  unless 
the  State  passes  legislation  making  this  possible. 

"Regarding  each  of  these  classes  of  land  the  board  has  made 
certain  recommendations.  These  have  been  considered  by  the 
Reclamation  Commission  and  approved  except  that  the  Com- 
mission is  of  the  opinion  that  no  lands  should  be  included  in 
the  project  at  this  time  that  cannot  be  adequately  served  from 
the  present  developed  water  supply  and  that  all  additional  lands 
proposed  to  be  included  through  the  development  of  additional 
water  supply  shall  be  considered  only  as  a  new  unit  of  the 
project  dependent  upon  approval  and  appropriation  by  Congress 
under  the  Act  of  August  13,  1914  (Public  No.  170),  or  upon  the 
development  of  such  additional  water  supply  by  the  water 
users  directly. 

"The  Commission  therefore  recommends: 

"4.  That  the  State  school  lands  cultivated  and  uncultivated 
and  other  uncultivated  lands  listed  above  as  (c),  (d)  and  (e) 
be  not  considered  a  part  of  the  project  at  present,  but  that 
such  lands  or  any  part  thereof  may  be  considered  as  a  new  unit 
dependent  upon  the  development  of  additional  water  supply 
for  such  lands,  except  that  whenever  the  water  supply  developed 
by  the  Government  system  exceeds  that  required  by  the  lands 
of  the  project,  such  excess  water  may  be  furnished  to  other 
lands  on  a  temporary  rental  basis,  preference  being  given  to 
the  State  school  lands  now  under  cultivation." 


It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  if  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board  of  Survey,  as  modified  by  the  Reclamation  Commission,  should 
be  finally  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  school 
lands,  both  cultivated  and  uncultivated,  will  not  be  ''considered 
a  part  of  the  project  at  present,"  but  "may  be  considered  as  a 
new  unit  dependent  upon  the  development  of  additional  water 
supply  for  such  lands,  except  that  whenever  the  water  supply  de- 
veloped by  the  Government  system  exceeds  that  required  by  the 


log  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND   COMMISSION 

lands  of  the  project,  such  excess  water  may  be  furnished  to  other 
lands  on  a  temporary  rental  basis,  preference  being  given  to  the 
State  school  lands  now  under  cultivation." 

Since  the  present  prospect  is  for  an  abundant  supply  of  stored 
water  in  Roosevelt  reservoir,  it  seems  likely  that  under  the  last 
clause  of  the  Reclamation  Commission's  recommendations,  the  school 
lands  under  cultivation  will  temporarily  at  least  be  accorded  suf- 
ficient stored  water,  in  addition  to  the  normal  flow  of  tie  river 
to  which  certain  of  them  are  entitled,  to  prevent  loss,  but  it  is 
evident  that  if  the  advantages  they  have  heretofore  had  are  to  be 
permanenth"  assured,  or  similar  ones  are  to  be  secured  for  such 
as  have  never  been  cultivated,  dependence  will  have  to  be  had  upon 
the  development  of  an  additional  water  supply,  either  by  the 
United  States,  the  Water  Users'  Association,  the  State  or,  in  the 
event  of  the  sale  of  the  land,  by  individual  land  owners. 

The  Commission  does  not  agree  with  the  assumption  of  the 
Board  of  Survey  that  legislation  by  the  State  providing  for  the 
sale  of  the  lands  is  essential,  under  the  law,  to  their  inclusion 
within  the  project,  or  with  the  Reclamation  Commission  "that 
these  lands  cannot  be  subscribed  to  the  project  under  the  terms  of 
the  Reclamation  Act  unless  the  State  passes  legislation  making 
this  possible,"  but  the  power  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to 
exclude  them  from  the  project  is  indubitable,  and  the  effect  is 
therefore  the  same,  if  that  determination  be  reached,  whether  the 
lands  could  or  could  not  be  subscribed  under  the  law  without 
further  legislation. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  of  course,  that  the  elimination  of 
the  school  lands  from  the  project  will  not  in  any  way  affect  such 
rights  as  they  may  possess,  under  the  "Kent  decree,"  to  the  normal 
flow  of  the  river.  Of  the  school  lands  possessing  such  rights  in 
some  measure  something  over  2,000  acres  are  entitled  to  ample 
water,  under  average  conditions,  for  their  successful  cultivation, 
but  the  remainder  will  be  left  without  sufficient  water. 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  status  of  the  school  lands  of  Salt  River  valley  has  been 
set  forth  in  detail,  to  the  end'  that  differing  views  as  to  their  proper 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  109 

disposition   may   be    considered   from   the   standpoint   of    accurate 
knowledge  of  the  facts. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Commission,  however,  authorization  should 
be  given  to  the  State  Land  Department  for  the  sale  of  these  lands, 
under  such  conditions  as  to  acreage,  minimum  price  and  terms  as 
will  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  State  and  afford  the  fullest  op- 
portunity for  the  more  thorough  development  of  the  land  and  the 
establishment  of  permanent  homes. 

The  Commission  is  led  to  this  view  by  a  number  of  considera- 
tions. Perhaps  the  most  important  and  controlling  one  is  that  no 
other  entirely  feasible  plan  of  adjusting  the  improvement  rights 
of  the  bona  fide  occupants  of  the  lands  presents  itself.  As  hereto- 
fore set  forth,  the  Commission's  appraisal  of  improvements  dis- 
closes a  valuation  of  $421,706.88,  not  taking  into  account  any  pos- 
sible value  that  water  rights  may  be  held  to  have.  An  adjustment 
of  the  claims  of  the  occupants,  therefore,  on  the  basis  of  payment 
out  of  the  General  Fund  is  obviously  impractical.  It  w^ould  im- 
poverish the  State. 

It  is  confidently  believed,  furthermore,  that  the  sale  of  these 
lands  will  be  in  the  interest  of  the  common  schools,  assuming  that 
the  proceeds  will  be  placed  in  a  permanent  inviolable  fund  of  which 
the  interest  only  may  be  spent.  Having  reached  an  approxi- 
mation of  their  ultimate  value,  the  lands,  if  judiciously  offered, 
on  terms  favorable  to  people  of  limited  meaps,  can  be  sold  at 
prices  which  will  net  the  State  a  great  deal  more  than  it  w^ould 
be  possible  to  receive  in  the  form  of  rental. 

It  is  apparent  to  the  Commission,  also,  that  as  a  general  rule 
these  lands,  under  their  present  status,  are  not  being  adequately 
cared  for.  In  many  cases  their  upkeep  is  being,  sadly  neglected. 
Noxious  weeds  and  grasses  are  allowed  to  multiply  to  the  very 
great  detriment  of  the  lands,  and  on  the  whole,  by  comparison  with 
adjacent  lands  under  private  ownership,  they  are  poorly  farmed. 
The  only  remedy  for  this  condition,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Commis- 
sion, lies  in  their  sale.  Whether  they  should  go  into  the  hands  of 
the  present  occupants  or  of  others,  the  pride  of  ownership,  as  well 
as  the  desire  for  profit,  would  stimulate  their  improvement,  and 
result  in  the  creation  of  additional  wealth  and  other  advantages  to 
the  State. 


110  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Finally,  it  is  evident  that  the  inclusion  of  these  lands  in  the 
Salt  River  Valley  reclamation  project,  and  their  admission  to  con- 
tractual rights  in  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam,  while  they 
remain  in  State  ownership,  is  viewed  with  disfavor  by  the  United 
States  government.  What  the  result  of  influences  which  might 
be  brought  to  bear  to  induce  a  modification  of  the  position  as- 
sumed by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  would  be,  cannot  of  course 
be  told,  but  the  policy  of  the  Department  looking  to  the  encourage- 
ment under  government  reclamation  projects  of  small  holdings 
by  actual  residents,  and  of  intensive  cultivation,  appears  to  be  well 
fixed. 

In  line  with  this  departmental  policy,  which  is  believed  to  be 
wise,  the  Commission  recommends  that  eighty  acres  be  fixed  as 
the  limit  of  land  that  may  be  sold  or  contracted  to  one  person,  and 
authority  should  be  given  to  the  State  Land  Department  to  pre- 
scribe a  still  lower  limit  wherever  circumstances  justify. 

Provision  should  be  made  for  the  separate  appraisal  of  land 
and  improvements,  and  agreement  to  the  latter  by  the  owner,  or, 
in  the  absence  of  such  agreement  a  judicial  determination  of  their 
value,  not  subject  to  appeal,  prior  to  sale.  In  cases  where  the  value 
of  the  improvements  is  found  to  be  so  great  that  the  necessary 
initial  payment  for  the  land,  when  added  to  the  cost  of  the  im- 
provements, would  tend  to  discourage  competitive  bidding,  moneys 
should  be  made  available  out  of  the  General  Fund  for  direct  pay- 
ment for  some  portion  of  the  improvements,  to  be  reimbursed  as 
received  from  the  subsequent  sale  of  the  improvements  in  connec- 
tion with  the  land. 

Adjustments  for  improvements,  upon  the  sale  of  the  land,  should 
also  comprehend  the  payment  to  the  State  of  all  rentals  due,  with 
penalties  and  interest  attached  to  such  rentals  as  are  delinquent, 
or  on  lands  for  which  applications  for  permits  have  not  been  mado. 

Ample  time  should  also  be  allowed  for  the  disposal  of  the  lands, 
in  order  that  the  interests  of  the  State  might  not  suffer  through 
what  would,  if  the  entire  body  of  school  land  in  Salt  River  valley 
were  thrown  upon  the  market  at  one  time,  virtually  amount  to  a 
forced  sale. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION       m 

In  the  event  that  it  should  appear  that  any  portion  of  the 
land  cannot  be  disposed  of  to  advantage,  by  reason  of  its  inability 
to  secure  the  stored  waters  of  Roosevelt  dam,  or  that  the  value 
thereof  might  be  greatly  enhanced,  to  the  profit  of  the  State,  by 
the  development  of  water  under  an  agreement  with  the  United  States 
Reclamation  Service  providing  for  the  inclusion  of  the  land  within 
the  project,  authorization  should  be  given  the  State  Land  Depart- 
ment to  make  the  expenditures  necessary  for  such  development  and 
to  enter  into  all  necessary  contracts  looking  to  the  inclusion  of  the 
school  lands  within  the  Salt  River  Valley  project. 


112 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


Ml 

COrH 

Tt< 

rHin 

«D 

si 

co'io 

QO' 

lO  CO 

00 

0_rH 

t- 

CO 

HPM 

lO  oi 

t^ 

OS 

Oi      ooo 

OS 

o      ooin 

m 

IC 

* 

s 

ic      d  d  c» 

CO 

rH 

rH          CDtHtH 

O 

o 

(N        OS        00 

o__ 

O 

<< 

co"               lO 

co"" 

U 

m 

C8 

S 

00  lO 

CO 

1           " 

1 

CO  t- 

iH 

^. 

1 

i-I  iH 

CO 

0^ 

(NCO 

LO 

lO 

^   1 

H      P5 

05  t- 

1                      JD 
1                     ^ 

(D 

(Min-* 

rH 

^ 

rHOOin 

lO 

-^^'^ 

Tjios  rH 

in 

S 

Is 

t-        lO 

CO 

c3 

CO        b- 

§ 

Pi 

i^ 

(N          Tt^rHlC 

(M 

c 

O 

^ 

'"' 

01 

OS  00 

t- 

IC  OS 

in 

1^ 

co'oo' 

oi 

oooo 

t- 

rl<rH 

CD 

K^ 

iM 

OS 

tH 

OS      ooo 

OS 

M 

O        O  O  lO 

lO 

lO 

a) 

w5      d  d  oc 

CO 

rH 

rH          COrHrH 

O 

IM        OS        X 

o_^ 

1 

CD                    IC 

co- 

^ 

rn 

12; 

oa> 

OS 

OS 

1 

05«0 

in 

»n 

1 

CO  OJ 

CO 

co' 

(M 

CO  05 

00 

00 

T-l 

CO 

■^ 

■r)* 

05 

H     » 

'"' 

rH  O  t- 

00 

,D 

o  V) 

OOSC 

OS 

00 

» 

^1 

CO      in 

00 

fe 

IM         -^rHin 

(N 

d 

rH         rH         t- 

O 

^ 

(M 

«D 

fl 

O 

d 

o 

N 

a 

r^ 

<j 

in' 

f»i  r~ 

.  o     •     •     • 

0)      ■ 

.rH      C 

fl.S 

t:  ..  a 

•  u 

•TS 

rj     to 

i5  = 

.  o 

1- 

c  6 

o   , 

Oi    0) 

a 

^:6 

o)  :ii! 

-«  Jn 

«     fH 

gP.'S      - 

^^ 

Ml 

If..- 

Receipts    f 
pplications 
Due  on  pe 

ancellations 

of.      nnnllpfl 

-2  o^       o 

'S 

Ill 

itact  at 
arning 
Statehc 
otal    ca 
arnings 

c3 
0) 

o 
u 

p^ 

<      C 

^ 

►^H 

E^H 

o 

Ml 

OSrH 

o 

i^  5r; 

CO  t- 

=  » 

NOO 

^ 

(MrH 

T|4 

CSP 

'^QO 

(M 

H" 

rH  rH 

o 

O 

'"' 

(M 

OS 

OOO 

OS 

>n 

looin 

in 

in 

0) 

CD 

coooo 

CO 

■i-\ 

u 

CD 

<Z:T^r-i 

o 

« 

CD         00 

o 

<1 

in      in 

CO 

1^ 


*='^ 


oooco 
CO  00  in 

OO"  t-^(M' 

OrHOS 

t-     o 


in 


CO 


in  CO 
Tf  oo" 


(M  t-(M 

00  rH  OS 
O  O 


t- 

J-< 

OOrHin 

(M 

c- 

Tt< 

t> 

O 

(M 

§a 
"a 

26 


"    ^    0) 
.-H    O)    W 

g  >  ^ 


"^  CO 

a-;3  > 


ft    a-^ 
;  ■=>  2-s  ft 

,  :3  c  c 
I Q  ^  '-^  -^^ 
QP3^ 


C8   -M     ^ 

OJ   O   03 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


113 


be 

in 

in  1 

G  ^1 

CJ 

(M 

e| 

« 

CO 

«>_ 

'®. 

CO 

i-T 

OS 

O 

o 

Iff 

00 

»4 

o 

q 

«5 

"-I 

w 

05 

05 

Xi 

< 

'^ 

"^. 

w 

xn 

iH 

i-T 

s 

0  05 

in 

in 

■ 

1 

"^       o 

Tj<t-: 

(M_ 

(M 

cq 

t>:ib 

co' 

CO 

05 

co^ 

CO 

to" 

^ 

%T 

S 

^^ 

c3 

P3 

! 

6 

e 

CO 

;2i 

be , 

in 

in 

cS3 

■<t 

"*. 

c  ^ 

CO 

CD 

u  o 

CO 

CO 

CS  Q, 

I-l 

rH 

H 

IN 

OS 

_ 

"~" 

o 

o 

o 
q 

uf 

s 

«>' 

d 

53 

05 

Oi 

M    -*! 

tH 

eS 

o 

s  ^ 

0.0 

in 

in 

1 

§  s 

^  « 

CO  I-l 

■* 

T)| 

1 

-*(M' 

d 

CD 

N 

<MrH 

CO 

3 

OJ 

^ 

i-l 

i     ' 

tjT 

_^'t3 

,d 

o'o 

«« 

CO 

CO 

6 

^ 

CO 

CO 

a 

od 

0 

00 

o 

CD 

a 

<j 

1 

•   fl 

««    .,  o    .    .    . 

] 

O 

o     .  -»^     .     .     . 

J| 

to 

<»    •  O     •     -tJ 

"g 

-M      ..«      .      •    (U 

s  s 

03    .  ;-    .       t. 

u 

-«      .P.     .    B!!-- 

V 

^  a 

Hi 

42    4J 

be 

o 

c 

ft  ^ 

;3     ^ 

«►- 

■2^  O^  ^H  o 

_G 

"-S-^ 

.„  ^ 

c 

C 

■'^   cS  « 

o   P 

u 

2"* 

•1 

lop3 

^'i 

c 

C3CC  !hM*;  >- 

2 

^ 

e 

J2 

k:;     K     H^' 

o 

H^ 


Tjt  in 

OJO 

inT)* 


1'^ 


g^ 


^1 


coco 
oos 

t-iM 

OS 

OS 
OS 

T*  OS 

OS       o 
in 


.=  G 

II 

0.2 


0)  ,Q 


,  a.- 

<   OJ   o 
!    >    CD 


ar  >  o  5 .2  a 

g  «  5  aj  o-c"^ 
01  —  a>  G  G  G 

^  a*^  '^  ii  ^  o 


•'O 

03    > 


CO  ti      -3  a) 


O 


114  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


UNIVERSITY  LANDS 


By  the  Act  of  Congress  of  February  18,  1881  (21  U.  S.  Stats., 
326) ,  Arizona — in  common  with  the  Territories  of  Dakota,  Montana, 
Idaho  and  Wyoming — received  a  grant  of  seventy-two  entire  sections 
of  land,  ''for  the  use  and  support  of  a,  university. " 

Since  the  history  of  the  legislation,  and  of  the  subsequent  acts 
by  means  of  which  the  State  is  now  receiving  the  benefits  of  an  im- 
portant annual  revenue  which  may  be  increased  year  by  year,  is 
almost  unknown,  and  the  opportunity  for  securing  accurate  data 
would  soon  pass  away,  it  was  deemed  advisable  by  the  Commission 
to  compile  such  information  relating  to  these  university  lands  as 
might  be  gathered.    Its  inclusion  here  may  not  be  out  of  place. 

HISTORY  OF  UNIVERSITY  GRANT. 

Though  the  grant  of  February  18,  1881,  accrued  to  the  benefit  of 
five  Territories,  including  Arizona,  it  is  asserted  by  men  who  were 
at  the  time  observers  of  the  proceedings  of  Congress  that  the  legis- 
lation was  promoted  and  brought  about  largely  through  the  efforts 
of  the  delegates  from  the  then  Territories  of  Dakota  and  Montana. 

That  Arizona  was  not  entirely  unaware  of  or  indifferent  to  the 
proposal  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  on  February  5,  1881,  there  was 
introduced  in  the  Council  of  the  Eleventh  Legislature  of  the  Terri- 
tory, a  resolution  known  as  Council  Joint  Resolution  No.  4,  which 
resolved :  Ik 

"That  our  Delegate  in  Congress  be  and  he  is  hereby  instructed 
to  use  his  influence  with  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  pro- 
cure the  passage  of  a  law  granting  to  the  Territory  of  Arizona 
four  townships  of  land  to  be  selected  in  legal  subdivision  by  the 
Surveyor-General  of  the  Territory  to  aid  in  the  endowment  of  a 
Territorial  University." 

The  resolution  passed  the  Council  without  a  dissenting,  voice, 
but  for  some  reason  unexplained  opposition  developed  in  the  House, 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  115 

where  P.  J.  Bolan,  of  Maricopa  county,  submitted  a  minority  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Education  recommending  that  it  do  not  pass. 

In  spite  of  this  opposition  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  an 
''aye"  vote  of  fifteen  and  a  ''no"  vote  which  was  not  recorded, 
and  on  February  19.  1881 — one  day  after  the  Act  of  Congress  for 
which  request  was  being  made  had  been  approved  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States— it  was  signed  by  Governor  John  C.  Fremont. 

Upon  M.  H,  Sherman,  who  was  at  that  time  Territorial  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction,  devolved  the  duty  of  selecting  the 
seventy- two  sections  of  land  to  which  Arizona  was  entitled.  Not 
knowing  how  to  select  the  best  land,  he  solicited  the  advice  of  W. 
N.  Kelly,  of  Prescott,  who  was  at  that  time  Register  of  the  United 
States  Land  Office  at  Prescott.  Mr.  Kelly  volunteered  to  recommend 
the  land  to  be  selected,  which  he  did  after  consulting  the  field 
notes  of  United  States  land  office  surveys  in  Coconino  county.  In- 
formation which  is  not  altogether  clear  indicates  that  Mr.  Kelly's 
recommendations  were  checked  through  an  examination  in  the  field 
by  a  committee  designated  by  Superintendent  Sherman.  The  per- 
sonnel of  this  committee  has  not  been  ascertained,  though  it  was 
probably  headed  by  D.  M.  Riordan,  then  of  Flagstaff,  now  of  New 
York  City. 

•  As  a  result  of  the  recommendations  of  Mr.  Kelly  and  of  the 
committee  examination  Selection  List  No.  1,  containing  45,678.68 
acres,  in  Township  20  North,  Ranges  5,  6  and  7  East,  and  Township 
21  North,  Ranges  3,  5,  6,  7  and  8  East,  all  of  which  are  now  embraced 
within  the  Coconino  and  Tusayan  National  Forests,  was  filed  De- 
cember 27,  1882. 

This  action  was  reported  to  the  Twelfth  Legislature  in  the 
message  of  Governor  F.  A.  Tritle,  dated  January  9,  1883,  wherein 
Governor  Tritle  also  observed  that  the  question  of  the  establishment 
of  a  Territorial  University  had  been  for  some  time  agitated,  but  in- 
asmuch as  there  was  no  money  available  for  the  payment  of  the 
expenses  of  such  an  establishment  he  advised  against  it. 

On  January  11,  1890,  the  list  filed  more  than  six  years  before, 
was  approved  as  to  36,890.14  acres,  and  rejected  as  to  7,668.54  acres. 
On  January  28,  1908,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office 
held  the  remainder,  1120  acres,  for  cancellation  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  unsurveyed  at  the  time  of  selection,  and  prior  to  survey  was  in- 


116  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

eluded  within  a  national  forest.  The  Territory  of  Arizona  appeal- 
ed from  the  ruling  of  the  Commissioner,  but  the  latter  was  sustained 
in  an  opinion  by  First  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Pierce. 

On  March  7,  190 i,  a  320-acre  tract  in  the  Tucson  mountains, 
near  the  city  of  Tucson,  was  selected  for  this  grant,  the  specific 
purpose  thereof,  since  the  land  was  practically  valueless  for  other 
purposes,  being  to  permit  its  utilization  by  the  Carnegie  Institute 
of  Washington,  for  the  establishment  of  a  desert  laboratory.  This 
selection  was  approved  May  6,  1905,  and  was  leased  to  the  institution 
mentioned,  which  still  retains  its  use. 

The  total  area  of  university  land  under  the  Act  of  February 
18,  1881,  is  therefore,  at  the  present  time,  37,210.14  acres,  leaving  a 
balance  of  8.869.86  acres  to  be  selected. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Act  of  February  18,  1881,  provided  that  the 
land  granted  should  be  "immediately"  selected  there  is  some  doubt 
as  to  the  allowance  of  further  selections  after  the  lapse  of  thirty- 
three  years,  but  it  is  likely  that  the  Department  of  the  Interior  will, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  selections  were  promptly  made  and  dis- 
approved after  a  long  term  of  years,  construe  the  Act  liberally. 

The  Territory's  administration  of  the  university  land  in  Coco- 
nino county  dates  from  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  April  7,  1896 
(29  U.  S.  Stats.,  90),  which  authorized  the  leasing,  under  Territorial 
law  thereafter  to  be  enacted,  and  pending  such  enactments  by  the 
Governor,  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction, under  regulations  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, of  all  the  university  and  school  lands  in  the  Territory.  From 
that  time  forward  the  university  land  was  administered  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Territorial  plan  of  administering  school  land,  and  the 
proceeds  devoted  to  the  purposes  of  the  University  of  Arizona. 

The  leasing  act  of  April  7,  1896,  it  appears,  was  not  effected 
until  an  effort  at  a  measure  which  would  have  thrown  down  the  bars 
to  the  robbing  of  the  Coconino  university  lands  of  their  magnificent 
timber  was  narrowly  defeated.'  A  leasing  bill  which  failed  to  pro- 
hibit the  removal  of  timber  was  actually  passed  by  Congress,  but 
owing  to  vigorous  opposition  by  watchful  Arizonans  was  vetoed 
by  President  Cleveland.  The  Act  of  April  7,  1896,  subsequently  pass- 
ed, prohibited  the  cutting,  removal  or  appropriation  of  timber 
growing  on  any  of  the  lands  to  be  leased. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  1x7 

Prior  to  this  other  causes  arose  to  convince  some  that  the  uni- 
versity lands  were  being  despoiled,  and  in  1885  the  then  United 
States  Marshal  for  Arizona.  W.  K.  iNIeade,  journeyed  to  Washington 
and  informed  the  Commissione!"  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Gen, 
Wm.  A.  J,  Sparks,  that  about  thirty-six  sections  "had  been  robbed" 
by  lumbermen  and  by  the  Santa  Pe  Pacific  railroad  company.  From 
the  Commissioner  the  Marshal  journeyed  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar;  from  the  Sec'-ctniy  to  iiic  Pi-'sideiit,  and 
back  to  the  Secretary.  Finally,  interest  was  taken  in  the  matter. 
an  investigation  ordered,  civil  and  criminal  suits  instituted,  a  number 
of  indictments  found  by  a  United  States  grand  jury  at  Prescott, 
arrests  effected,  witnesses  secured  and  every  preparation  made  for 
trial.  At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  an  order  came  from  the  De- 
partment of  Justice  to  continue  the  cases,  which  was  tantamount 
to  dropping  them.  The  order  was  said  to  have  been  made  at  the 
request  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Wm.  F.  Vilas,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded Secretary  Lamar. 

DESCRIPTION. 

As  heretofore  stated,  the  land  approved,  in  Coconino  county, 
amounts  to  36,890.14  acres,  and  is  embraced  entirely  within  the  Co- 
conino and  Tusayan  National  Forests.  It  consists  of  alternate  even- 
numbered  sections  and  a  few  isolated  sections,  there  being  fifty-eight 
and  one-half  sections  in  all.  The  location  of  the  land  is  on  a  rolling, 
rocky  plateau  between  6,500  and  7.800  feet  in  elevation.  The  soil 
for  the  most  part  is  a  clayey  loam  derived  from  disintegrated  lava 
or  limestone,  and  being  generally  covered  by  fragments  or  broken 
outcroppings  of  lava  or  limestone,  is  mostly  valueless  for  agri- 
culture. Of  the  total  area,  3,596.24  acres  are  suitable,  in  some  meas- 
ure, for  agricultural  purposes.  What  living  springs  are  on  any  of 
the  tracts  are  of  little  importance.  There  are  a  number  of  tanks  on 
various  sections,  built  by  lessees,  for  the'  watering  of  stock  being 
grazed  thereon,  or  formed  by  railroad  grades.  There  is  permanent 
water  on  but  one  section.  The  entire  area  is  most  excellent  for  graz- 
ing purposes,  though  by  far  the  greatest  value  of  the  land  lies  in  its 
magnificent  stand  of  western  yellow  pine. 

Estimates  obtained  from  cruising,  under  the  direction  of  offic- 
ials of  the  National  Forest  Service,  and  contained  in  the  report  of 


118  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

the  Commission  dated  February  1,  1913,  indicated  approximately 
242,161,000  feet  B.M.,  of  merchantable  western  yellow  pine,  on  the 
entire  area.  The  experience  had,  however,  in  two  sales  effected  by 
the  Commission,  shows  that  these  estimates  will  fall  not  less  than 
twenty-five  per  cent,  and  probably  nearer  fifty  per  cent  short.  Tak- 
ing the  lesser  increase  as  a  basis,  it  may  be  safely  estimated  that  the 
existing  stand  of  merchantable  timber  will  reach  300,000,000  feet. 

The  320-acre  tract  of  university  land  in  Pima  county  is  merely 
mountainous,  rocky  land,  of  questionable  value  even  for  grazing. 
Its  chief,  if  not  only  value,  lies  in  the  desirability  of  its  location  for 
the  purposes  of  the  lessee,  the  Carnegie  Institute. 

ADMINISTRATION. 

The  Commission's  authority  to  administer  the  university  lands 
is  contained  in  three  provisions  of  law,  and  the  poAvers  derived  from 
all  of  them  the  Commission  has  had  occasion  to  invoke. 

As  in  the  case  of  school  lands,  authority  to  grant  permits  for  the 
continued  occupancy  of  university  lands  was  granted  b}^  the  Act  of 
May  20,  1912  (Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913;,  and  in 
accordance  therewith  such  of  the  Territorial  lessees  as  have  made 
the  required  applications  have  been  granted  permits.  The  minimum 
rental,  which  prior  to  Statehood  was  $10  per  annum  for  a  section, 
has  been  increased  to  $20,  while  for  some  a  higher  rental  than  this 
is  charged. 

Although  at  the  date  of  Statehood  fifty-nine  university  sections 
or  tracts  were  being  leased,  but  thirty-nine  applications  for  permits 
have  been  approved  by  the  Commission.  The  decrease  is  partly  du€ 
to  the  voluntary  abandonment  of  leases  and  partly  to  the  fact  that 
certain  of  the  lessees  were  holding  in  excess  of  the  acreage  allowed 
by  the  law  which  limits  the  lease  of  State  land. 

A  statement  showing  the  different  phases  of  the  administration 
of  university  lands,  as  it  relates  to  permits  and  leases,  is  contained  in 
Table  XV,  Page  125.  Although  the  amount  leased  is  at  present  reduc- 
ed, the  net  returns  have  been  increased,  and  with  proper  attention 
may  be  still  further  increased. 

If  it  were  possible  to  extend  the  limit  which  may  be  leased  to 


REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  HO 

one  person,  association  or  corporation  a  revenue  could  be  derived 
from  all  of  the  university  land  in  Coconino  county. 

CO-OPERATION  WITH  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE/ 

By  the  Act  approved  April  11,  1913  (Chapter  3,  Title  43,  Revised 
Statutes  1913),  the  Commission  was  authorized  "to  care  for,  sell,  or 
otherwise  administer,  the  timber  and  timber  products  upon  the 
public  lands  of  the  State." 

AVith  a  realization  of  the  situation's  requirements  in  the  way 
of  fire  protection  for  the  State's  valuable  forest;  in  the  way  of  tech- 
nical and  practical  aid  in  applying  the  principles  of  conservative 
lumbering,  and  forest  management,  and  in  the  way  of  trained  forest 
men  to  assist  in  administering  tinfber  sales,  the  Commission  took 
occasion  to  enter  into  a  co-operative  agreement  with  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture.  By  the  terms  of  this  agreement, 
which  is  dated  January  15.  1914,  the  Department  agrees  to  give 
without  cost,  such  technical  advice  with  respect  to  timber  sale  op- 
erations and  the  care  of  timber  lands  as  the  State  may  from  time  to 
time  request ;  to  make,  likcAvise  without  cost,  examinations  of  the 
university  lands  upon  request,  and  to  report  upon  the  condition  and 
status  of  the  lands  and  the  products  thereof,  the  desirability  of  tim- 
.  ber  sales,  logging  plans,  stumpage  values,  and  such  other  similar  ad- 
visory matters  as  will  aid  in  the  proper  administration  of  the  lands 
and  the  disposition  of  the  products ;  and  to  designate,  upon  the 
State's  request,  "Forest  officers  who  may  work  for  the  State  in  the 
working,  scaling,  supervision  of  logging  and  other  operations  in 
connection  with  the  removal  of  the  timber  from  the  said  State  lands,'' 
the  salaries  and  expenses  of  the  Forest  officers  while  engaged  in 
such  work  to  be  borne  by  the  State. 

On  its  part  the  State  is  obligated  to  employ  at  least  one  forest 
guard  during  the  fire  season — usually  from  May  1  to  October  31 — 
to  co-operate  with  local  Forest  officers  in  the  work  of  fire  pre- 
vention;  to  pay  the  State's  proportion  of  the  cost  of  suppressing 
forest  fires  within  the  district  embracing  the  university  lands,  and 
to  cut  and  remove  the  timber  from  the  university  lands  as  nearly  as 
mav  be  in  accordance  with  National  Forest  rules  and  regulations. 


120  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

The  advantag:es  of  this  agreement  have  been  shown  in  a  manner 
so  direct  and  practical  as  to  appeal  to  the  most  casual  mind.  It  has 
proved  extremely  economical.  As  indicated  by  Table  XVIII,  set  forth 
on  page  126,  th,e  total  cost  of  administering  the  university  lands  from 
the  date  of  the  agreement  to  December  1,  1911,  was  $2,222.03,  which 
includes  the  items  of  fire  protection  and  the  various  expenses  at- 
tendant upon  the  advertising,  the  sale  and  the  scaling  and  marking 
of  $60,210.88  worth  of  the  land's  timber  products.  By  charging  this 
total  expense  against  the  cost  of  scaling  and  marking  the  timber 
sold,  it  averages  about  twelve  cents  per  thousand  feet,  ancl  when 
the  fact  is  taken  into  consideration  that  the  general  average  of  that 
ite'm  of  forest  administration  is  about  thirty  cents  per  thousand 
feet,  the  economy  of  the  State's  co-operative  agreement  requires  no 
further  elucidation.  It  is  only  fair  to  say,  however,  that  the  ad- 
vantage extends  much  further,  in  the  excellence  of  the  assistance 
rendered  by  the  Forest  officers,  the  value  of  their  advice,  and  the 
smoothness  of  operation  which  comes  by  reason  of  utilizing  the 
local  Forest  Service  organization  located  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
State's  lands. 

TIMBER  SALES. 

Despite  the  aggravated  depression  in  the  lumber  market  which 
has  prevailed  for  more  than  two  years,  and  which  has  failed  as 
yet  to  exhibit  any  appreciable  improvement,  the  Commission  has 
been  able  to  make  two  timber  sales,  aggregating  some  27,000,000  feet 
of  western  yellow  pine,  at  very  favorable  prices,  with  at  least  two 
other  considerable  sales  in  early  prospect.  These  sales  have  result- 
ed in  receipts  to  date  amounting  to  $59,000,  w^hich  has  been  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  State  Treasurer,  by  whom  it  is  held  in  a  special 
fund,  no  fund  for  the  reception  of  such  moneys  having  as  yet  been 
created  by  law.  Of  the  sum  so  deposited  $4,158.61  represents  a  bal- 
in  favor  of  the  purchasers  to  be  applied  against  future  cutting.  At 
the  rate  at  which  cutting  on  the  second  sale  is  progressing,  the  bal- 
ance will  be  exhausted  within  two  weeks.  In  addition  to  a  surety 
bond  conditioned  upon  faithful  performance  of  contract,  the  Commis- 
sion requires  of  purchasers  advance  deposits  proportionate  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  sale,  the  deposit  in  the  case  of  a  maximum  sale  of 
approximately  15,000.000  feet  being  $5,000. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  121 

Though  not  properly  a  part  of  the  Commission's  report,  it  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  moneys  deposited  with  the  State  Treasurer 
on  account  of  timber  sales  have  been  by  him  placed  with  banks  at 
interest,  and  will  have  earned,  on  December  15,  $903.24.  This  affords 
a  tangible  illustration  of  the  earning  power  of  a  permanent  fund. 


ADJUSTMENT  OF  TRESPASS  CLAIM. 


Much  gratification  has  been  afforded  the  Commission  by  the  sat- 
isfactory adjustment,  without  recourse  to  the  courts,  of  a  claim  for 
trespass  resulting  from  the  construction  of  a  logging  road,  a  num- 
ber of  years  ago,  by  the  Central  Arizona  Railway  Company,  now 
owned  by  the  Arizona  Lumber  &  Timber  Company,  of  Flagstaff, 
over  certain  sections  of  the  university  timber  lands.  This  logging 
road  was  constructed  under  and  by  virtue  of  an  Act  of  Congress 
approved  February  25,  1903,  granting  it  a  right-of-way  over  the 
*' public  lands  of  the  United  States,"  and  the  question  as  to  whether 
trespass  had  been  committed  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  hinged 
upon  whether  the  university  lands — granted  for  "the  use  and  sup- 
port of  a  university  *  *  *  when  the  Territory  shall  be  admitted  as 
a  State  into  the  Union" — were,  prior  to  Statehood,  "public  lands 
of  the  United  States." 

The  question  of  the  State's  right  to  reimbursement  for  the  tim- 
ber cut  from  the  right-of-way  was  raised  by  the  Commission  in  the 
course  of  its  discharge  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  it  by  Paragraph 
4570,  Chapter  1.  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913,  to  administer  the 
lands  of  the  State  and  to  commence  and  prosecute  all  actions  neces- 
sary or  proper  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  State.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  recount  the  details  of  the  succeeding  negotiations.  Suffice  it 
to  say  that  the  Arizona  Lumber  &  Timber  Company,  while  failing  to 
recognize  or  admit  its  legal  responsibility,  viewed  the  matter  in 
its  broader  aspect  of  the  equities  and  the  moral  obligation  involved, 
and  settled,  without  recourse  to  the  courts,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Commission's  claim  for  the  entire  amount  of  timber  cut,  as  deter- 
mined by  a  painstaking  survey  of  the  ground.  This  settlement 
brought  to  the  State  $1210.88,  which  has  been  paid  to  the  State 
Treasurer. 


122  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND   COMMISSION 

A  UNIVERSITY  LAND  FUND. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  moneys  derived  from  timber  sale  con- 
tracts, this  money  is  being  held  by  the  State  Treasurer  in  a  special 
fund,  no  fund  for  its  reception  having  been  created  by  the  Legisla- 
ture. The  creation  of  such  a  fund,  by  the  approaching  Legislature, 
is  a  business  necessity;  and  in  this  connection  the  exceedingly  im- 
portant question  arises  as  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued  in  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  moneys  recoverable  into  such  a  fund. 

The  legal  aspects  presented  are  as  follows : 

The  Act  of  February  18,  1881  (21  U.  S.  Stats.,  326),  by  which 
Congress  granted  ' '  seventy- two  entire  sections ' '  to  the  Territory,  for 
the  use  and  support  of  a  university  when  the  Territory  should  be 
admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union"  imposed  the  condition  that 
the  moneys  derived  "from  the  sale  of  said  lands"  should  be  invested 
in  the  bonds  of  the  United  States  and  deposited  with  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States;  that  it  should  constitute  a  university  fund, 
and  no  part  of  it  should  be  expended  for  buildings  or  the  salaries 
of  professors  or  teachers  until  the  same  should  amount  to  $50,000, 
and  then  only  the  interest  until  the  fund  should  amount  to  $100,000, 
when  the  excess  and  the  interest  might  be  used  "for  the  proper  es- 
tablishment and  support"  of  a  university. 

These  conditions,  w^hich  surrounded  the  original  grant  of  the 
land,  would  probably  be  held  to  apply  only  to  the  period  when  Ari- 
zona was  yet  a  Territory,  and  to  have  become  null  and  void  with 
Statehood,  or  to  have  been  repealed  or  amended  by  the  Enabling  Act, 
which  contains  comprehensive  conditions  respecting  the  administra- 
tion of  the  lands  granted  by  Congress  and  the  disposition  of  the 
moneys  derived  therefrom,  which  conditions  the  State  accepted  and 
ratified  in  its  Constitution. 

It  is  at  least  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  it  was  the  in- 
tention of  Congress,  in  granting  these  lands,  to  create  a  permanent 
fund  of  not  less  than  $100,000,  which  should  not  be  suffered  to  de- 
teriorate, but  should  serve  as  a  dependable  and  continuous  re- 
source. 

The  Enabling  Act  provides  that  a  separate  fund  shall  be  created 
for  each  of  the  several  objects  for  which  the  grants  named  in  that 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  123 

Act  were  made,  or  for  which  any  lands  were  theretofore  granted  to 
the  Territory;  that  the  lands,  the  natural  products  thereof  and  the 
money  proceeds  of  the  lands,  shall  be  held  in  trust  for  the  several  ob- 
jects specified ;  that  the  moneys  in  any  manner  derived  from  any  of 
said  lands  shall  be  deposited  by  the  State  Treasurer  in  the  fund  cor- 
responding to  the  grant  under  which  the  land  producing  it  was  con- 
veyed or  confirmed,  and  that  the  State  Treasurer  shall  keep  all 
such  moneys  invested  in  safe,  interest-bearing  securities,  to  be  ap- 
proved by  the  Governor  and  Secretary  of  State. 

These,  then,  would  appear  to  be  the  only  legal  restrictions  sur- 
rounding the  disposition  of  the  moneys  derived  from  the  natural 
products  of  the  university  lands  granted  by  the  Act  of  February  18, 
1881^  and  confirmed  by  the  Enabling  Act.  The  question  remains 
as  to  whether  the  moneys  so  derived  shall  be  erected  into  an  inviola- 
ble trust  fund,  of  which  the  interest  only  may  be  used,  or  the 
bars  are  to  be  thrown  down  and  the  university's  resources  dissipated 
as  rapidly  as  they  can  be  accumulated.  Doubtless,  in  view  of  the  in- 
stitution's constantly  growing  needs  and  the  difficulties  which  their 
satisfaction  by  the  method  of  direct  taxation  presents,  there  will  be 
a  temptation  to  utilize  the  principal  of  the  moneys  received  from  the 
sale  of  timber  for  that  purpose.  It  is  the  hope  of  the  Commission, 
however,  that  this  temptation  will  be  resisted;  that  the  State,  in 
regarding,  the  needs  of  its  great  educational  institutions,  will  build 
for  the  future,  which  can  only  be  done  by  building  substantially. 
Experiences  of  the  past,  and  the  best  thought  of  the  present,  inevit- 
ably point  to  the  policy  of  establishing  permanent,  inviolable  funds 
for  all  permanent  purposes,  and  the  State  has  no  purpose  more  per- 
manent than  that  of  education.  In  the  event  that  these  lands  were 
to  be  sold,  there  would  scarcely  be  a  thought  but  that  the  proceeds 
should  constitute  a  permanent  fund.  No  argument  will  be  required 
to  set  forth  the  folly  of  killing  the  hen  that  lays  the  golden  egg,  and 
therefore  no  one  will  suggest  that  lands  of  the  character  being  con- 
sidered should  be  sold ;  but  it  follows  logically  that  if  the  product  of 
these  lands,  requiring  a  lifetime  for  reproduction,  are  to  be  disposed 
of,  the  proceeds  should  be  treated  in  the  same  way  as  would  the 
proceeds  from  the  sale  of  the  lands  themselves. 

The  Commission  estimates  that  there  is  at  the  present  time 
in  the  neighborhood  of  300,000,000  feet  of  mature  and  over-mature 
western  yellow  pine  on  the  university  lands.     Approximately  two- 


124  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

thirds  of  this  can  be  marketed  within  the  next  twelve  years  at  a 
price  which,  despite  present  unfavorable  conditions,  it  is  reasonable 
to  expect  will  averagre  $3.50  per  thousand.  Thus  can  a  permanent 
fund  be  created  Avhich  within  twelve  years  will  reach  $700,000  from 
the  sale  of  timber  alone,  and  this  amount  can  be  steadily  increased 
at  frequent  intervals  thereafter  by  the  sale  of  timber  not  yet  mature, 
but  so  nearly  mature  that  it  will  soon  be  suitable  for  cutting. 

When  to  this  foundation  for  a  permanent  university  fund  is 
added  the  amount  which  may  be  derived  from  the  wise  administra^ 
tion  of  the  grant  for  university  purposes,  and  the  co-related  grants  for 
agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges  and  a  school  of  mines,  as  con- 
veyed by  the  Enabling  Act,  the  possibilities  of  a  fund  which  in  the 
course  of  time  will  go  far  toward  wholly  maintaining  the  institution, 
become  apparent. 

The  Commission  therefore  recommends  that  such  a  permanent 
fund  be  established,  and  that  all  receipts  from  the  sale  of  timber 
and  cordwood  be  deposited  therein,  and  converted  into  safe,  interest- 
bearing  securities  as  provided  b,y  law,  only  the  interest  from  which 
may  be  employed  for  the  uses  of  the  university. 

CLASSIFICATION. 

Grazing  Agricultural  Total 

Applied   for 17,212.72  3,276.66  20,489.38 

Not  applied  for  16,081.18  319.58  16,400.76 


Total  33,293.90  3,596.24  36,890.14 


REPORf  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


125 


M  , 

X 

^ 

X 

2 

S   S 

X  kC 

cc 

CJ 

^   ^ 

XCJ 

rH 

coco 

o 

W;2 

?^  cc 

l~ 

X 

■-0 

1     ■* 

X 

M 

OS' 

X 

d 

o 

d 

ca 

O 

« 

-f 

't 

x^ 

1 

1^ 

<: 

to' 

cc 

1 

(M 

Pi 

(M-JD 

00 

1 

X 

02 

-< 

-« 

05 

^. 

00 

1 

X 

w 

'o 

O5  00 

00 

1 

X 

c^o 

cc 

cc 

d^ 

tf 

■0 

so 

1 

cc 

^ 

o 

o 

A 

T) 

lO 

in 

li 

b 

i> 

:$ 

cc 

1 

cc 

6 

a 

_ 

1  _ 

^ 

r^ 

S 

< 

" 

■^^ 

"^ 

'^'^'^'^^ 

"""^ 

05.-1 

o 

c  J 

t-(M 

o 

u  ^ 

do 

^ 

CS  o 

cc  cc 

CO 

Wfl. 

CI 

-r. 

CD 

-* 

CO 

CO 

t- 

a, 

1 

O 
O 

d 

■< 

•^ 

'^ 

x_ 

in 

o 

tf 

d" 

"^ 

T5 

(M 

CO 

IM  t- 

Oi 

03 

;-. 

GO 

t-;0 

t- 

t- 

C9 
1 

O 

'w 

(N  CO 

d 

d 

;? 

02 

(M 

cc 

1 

CO 

1 

?5 

1 

M 

< 

05 

•■d 

^ 

c: 

K 

-jf '« 

o 

O 

■<*" 

CO 

1 

CC 

r-( 

d 

-S 

a 

c 

Oi 

2u 

z 

C-: 

ca 

kC 

1 

(N 

^J 

1 

in 

s 

d 

< 

05 

in 

ts-o    ■ 

i  • 

o 

o 

"O 

M 

o 

o 

C8     • 

0) 

c 

JS 

JS 

ao 

s 

o 

-£ 

0) 

M  : 

_4> 

_o 

.S2 

"cS 

« 

"eS 

cS 

c 

00 

C 

o 

za^^ 

s 

xn 

X 

0) 

O 

;h 

ft 

o 

t: 

'm     • 

s 
s 

o 

s 

be 

c 

r- 

CD 

■"    .  a. 

ft      . 

o     . 

..   CO 

O) 

5 

-S 

-o 

a  . 

is 

t. 

CO 

5 

n 

O  J3   •■ 

bo  ; 

.2  • 

CO 

1^ 

a; 

a 

Oi 

c8  O   s 

h 

0L, 

< 

(2 

j2 

JW^ 

ft 

o 

ino 

irt  : 

**.. 

M-* 

CO  i 

.3  53 

oid 

rHl 

So 

in-* 

o 

>c 

rttCO 

Oi 

^'^ 

iH  1 

i 

m* 

■r> 

Tf 

1 

c             xt- 

^ 

1 

^'.             -Id 

d 

1 

J3 

V 

01                t-o 

05 

^ 

X                    O  't 

X 

c3 
1 

m             oi  ^• 

d" 
1 

•* 

..c 

i.C 

1           ,- 

OJ 

ci 

oi 

1               OJ 

H       « 

« 

'm' 

ci 

Oj' 

1 

CO' 

■5 

1  "* 

'^ 

l-H 

~ 

1 

x: 

oo 

o 

1 

O'y 

ojin 

Tft 

i 

C8 

Z    * 

doi 

05 

S 

P3 

xco 
OJ  cc 

z 

6 

cc               coo 

05 

■■■            i 

^ 

OJ                       .H  Ol 

m 

^- 

oc 

o 

OJCO 

in 

t-'x 

id 

rmn 

t- 

Tt< 

COr* 

o_ 

a> 

in 

_j,       -^       X;  ■* 

-* 

i-i 

CO 

O         X          Tj|  t- 

r-t 

0) 

oj      d      t-^  o 

d 

ji 

<1 

CD        05        01  O 

Oi 

Z 

CD        t-        0_Tl< 

X 

c8 

co"             co"co 

co' 

1 

iH                              tH 

cc 

1 

CC 

o 

o     o 

o 

in 

in       t-; 

OJ 

OS 
CD* 

in 
t- 
in 

in      ^ 
t-      -^ 
in 

t- 

CO 

1 

ooo 

c 

xom 

oc 

,c3 

o 

O   «i 

'inoj 

X 

u 

05 

^« 

05C0 

cc 

IT 

:^ 

d 

r^         05         COO 

OS 

Iz; 

CO                          OJ 

in 

•d 

o 

Ti 

o 

c 

,£3 

'^ 

X 

tM 

3 

o 

o  oi 

i 

■^s 

M 

c 

— 1     "S.S 

■SM 

s 

l 

to     c'H. 

MO 

S 

.^  ..  OJ  a 

i: 

'3 

1 

£ 

c 

^ 

11  si 

=3   (-   W   '■ 

1 

s  > 

•      o  !=^«J  - 

0)   0) 

b£ 

CO  C-O      *^  a 

'3 

.rt  a 

-M  o  0)  c  c  — 

«:::  (V  3  c 
P3  atfC-z:*. 

S       ~;  c/ 
>-     —  W)S  b 

c      1 

c« 

O 

0) 

P,           aj  c 

1,  c8  o  a 

5         t 

PL( 

<; 

C 

?- 

W^ 

^ 

O 

126 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


SALE    OF   TIMBER  AND    OORDWOOD    FROM   UNIVERSITY   LAND 

TABLE  XVI 

RECEIPTS  TO  DECEMBER   1.   1914 


Price 
Per  M. 


Sold  to 


Amt.  cut 
Ft.B.M. 


Value 


Reed 


Bal. credit 
buyer 


Sale  No.  1 
Sale  No.  2. 
Trespass  .  . 
Cordwood 


Total 


3.00 
3.50 


A.L.&  T.Co. 
A.L.&  T.Co. 
A.L.&  T.Co. 
Ed.G.Keith 


Bal.  to  credit  of  purchasers 


Total  receipts  p'd  to   State  Treasurer 


12,634,120 

'   4,837,770 


17,471,890 


37,909.20 

16,932.19 

1,210.88 

12.50 


39,000.00 

20,000.00 

1,210,88 

12.50 

60,223.88 


56,064.77 
4,158.61 
60,223.38  I  60,223.38 


1,090.80 
3,067.81 


4,158.61 


Estimated  number  of  feet  in  sale,     13,545,000  feet. 


UNIVERSITY  LAND  LEASES 

(Act   of   May    17.    1913.) 
TABLE    XVII 


County 


Granted         Rejected 

No.   Acres      No.     Acres 


Pending 
No.     Acres 


To 
Mch  15,1914 


Rentals 
Mch. 16, 1914- 

Mch.15.1915 


Total 


Pima 


320 


10.00 


10.00 


20.00 


UNIVERSITY  LAND  DISBURSEMENTS  TO  DECEMBER  1,   1914 
TABLE   XVIII 


Scal'g& 
Marking 

Fire 
Protc'n 

TraVg 

Adv'g 

Mscl 

Total 

Sale    No.    1    

Sale    No.    2    

1,685.14 

125.28 

235.59 

97.05 
28,65 

30.12 
12.25 

7.95 

2,055.85 
166.18 

Total      

1,810.42 

235.59 

125.70 

42.37 

7.95 

2,222.03 

REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  12J 


A  STATE  LAND  POLICY 


What  shall  be  the  State's  permanent  land  policy?  What  shall 
be  done  with  the  federal  government's  munificent  endowments  for 
Arizona's  favored  institutions?  Shall  they  be  treated  as  a  gratuity 
which,  costing  nothing,  is  worth  neither  thought  nor  effort,  or  as 
a  sacred  trust,  from  which,  while  being  brought  to  serve  its  ultimate 
purpose,  the  maximum  returns  should  be  derived? 

And  shall  this   question — which  is  the  largest  now  pressing 

for  legislative  attention — be  considered  solely  from  its  narrowest 

aspect  of  today's  dollars  and  cents,  or  shall  it  be  considered  broadly 

for  its  effect  in  all  directions  and  upon  the  future  ?    From  which  end 

purpooo,  the  maxfmum  roturna  ahall  be  dmvJlf 
•f  til*  t*l«to*^  fUl  It  k«  Tlvwii  P 

The  Commission  is  familiar  with  the  magnificence  of  the  grant 

to  Arizona;  impressed  with  the  grandeur  of  the  opportunity  for 
constructive  State  building  it  affords,  and  inspired  with  the  hope 
that  out  of  the  excellence  and  plenty  of  the  material  at  hand  a 
structure  may  be  erected  which  for  all  time  to  come  will  be  an 
object  of  pride  and  gratification  alike  to  builder  and  beneficiary. 

Imbued  with  such  a  knowledge  and  such  a  spirit,  the  Commis- 
sion has  striven  to  give  to  its  consideration  of  the  question  of  a 
State  land  policy  that  breadth  of  vision  and  thought — that  compre- 
hension of  its  ramifications  and  related  issues  and  subjects — which 
are  essential  to  the  achievement  of  the  sought-for  goal. 

ARIZONA'S  GREATEST  NEED. 

It  is  not  remarkable  that  no  dissenting  voice  is  heard  to  the 
frequently-advanced  proposition  that  Arizona's  greatest  and  most 
pressing  need  is  people — more  people.  With,  in  round  figures, 
113,000  square  miles  of  territory — the  equal  in  area  of  England, 
Ireland  and  Scotland;  larger  than  Italy;  as  extensive  as  Holland, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Portugal,  Switzerland  and  Bavaria  combined; 


128  REPORT  OP  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

fifth  in  size  of  the  States  of  the  Union;  as  big  as  New  England, 
or  as  almost  any  two  Southern  or  Middle  West  States — ^her  quarter 
of  a  million  population  truly  looks  pitifully  meagre.  With  this  pre- 
dominant fact  of  area  and  settlement  in  mind,  coupled  with  the 
ever-present  desire  for  the  stimulus  to  trade  which  additions  of 
population  bring,  the  demand  for  newcomers  is  natural,  logical, 
and — within  certain  limitations — proper. 

But  great  as  this  need  is,  and  universal  as  the  belief  in  its 
paramount  importance  is,  it  still  is  not  and  should  not  be  regarded 
as  the  one  fundamental,  absorbing  exigency  of  the  hour,  nor  its 
encompassment  as  the  future's  chief  goal.  Back  of  it,  somewhat 
obscured  in  the  shadow  cast  by  the  constant  urging  of  ever-present 
personal  desires  and  material  ambitions,  stands  a  much  greater,  a 
real,  a  compelling  necessity — the  demand  of  advanced  civilization, 
as  represented  by  a  modern,  progressive  commonwealth,  not  merely 
for  more  people,  but  for  prosperous,  contented  and  happy  people. 
By  thus  amending  and  enlarging  the  common  cry,  to  bring  within 
its  scope  and  purpose  the  settlement  and  development  of  the  State 
under  conditions  which  will  reasonably  insure  a  hopeful,  self-re- 
liant, independent  race,  a  well-meant  and  generally  accepted  but 
much  abused  slogan  is  converted  into  a  motto  of  wisdom,  practi- 
cality and  patriotism. 

What  Arizona  needs,  therefore,  and  what  she  really  wants,  is 
the  peopling  of  her  fertile  but  undeveloped  valleys  and  her  broad 
but  unreclaimed  mesas,  on  a  basis  of  promise  that  peopling,  de- 
velopment and  reclamation  will  synchronize  with  a  considerable,  if 
not  the  highest  sum  of  human  happiness. 

THE  STATE'S  DUTY  IS  CLEAR. 

Arizona's  duty  to  bring  this  about  would  be  clear  even  though 
she  owned  none  of  these  fine  valleys  and  broad  mesas  herself;  but 
since  she  does  own  many  of  them,  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  her  own 
name,  and  by  that  token  holds  the  key  to  the  situation,  not  only  is 
her  duty  made  more  personal  but  the  solution  of  the  problem  its 
performance  involves  is  fairly  pointed  out.  The  problem  is  to  con- 
vert some  millions  of  acres  of  so-called  desert  of  varying  grades  and 
classes  into  homes  and  fields  and  orchards — to  grow  a  successful, 
enthusiastic,  grateful  citizen  where  at  best  a  white-faced  steer  grew 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  129 

before,  or  maybe  only  a  coyote  barked  at  the  moon ;  and  this  prob- 
lem inevitably  attaches  itself  to  and  becomes  a  part  of  the  under- 
taking to  so  utilize  the  generous  land  grants  with  which  the  State's 
educational,  charitable,  philanthropic  and  other  public  institutions 
have  been  endowed  as  to  achieve  in  the  highest  degree  the  purpose 
of  Congress  in  making  them,  and  realize  Arizona's  hope  of  a  material 
reduction  of  taxation  necessities.  Subjected,  then,  to  the  simple  rule 
of  addition,  the  question  becomes  one  of  so  handling  the  State's 
lands  as  to  accomplish  these  two  objects  at  one  time — to  effect  the 
definite,  concrete  purpose  for  which  the  grants  were  designed,  and 
to  do  it  by  such  a  wise,  systematic  process  as  will  correct,  through 
the  medium  of  prosperous,  happy  producers,  what  is  admittedly  a 
most  striking  deficiency  in  population.  Having  defined  and  con- 
nected up  this  great  and  universally  recognized  need  with  the  im- 
portant obligation  imposed  by  Congress,  and  possessing  the  means 
of  supplying  the  one  and  discharging  the  other,  Arizona  should 
henceforth  recognize  their  unity,  and  under  no  circumstances  per- 
mit their  separation  in  any  plan  that  may  be  considered.  Know- 
ing the  full  dimensions  of  the  undertaking,  the  State  should  give  no 
heed  to  proposals  that  will  fall  short  of  that  undertaking's  full 
accomplishment. 

Arizona  is  the  owner  of  2,350,000  acres,  given  by  the  United 
States  for  the  endowment  of  the  State's  public  institutions.  These 
lands  are  being  selected  with  reference  to  carefully  estimated 
possibilities  for  high  development.  Also,  in  each  surveyed,  un- 
reserved township  are  four  sections  granted  for  the  benefit  of  the 
common  schools.  The  location  of  this  land  is  fixed  and  it  could  not 
therefore  be  chosen  for  peculiar  advantages,  but  being  scattered 
throughout  the  State  it  averages  well.  A  fair  proportion  of  it  can 
claim  odds  favoring  development  equal  to  the  institutional  lands, 
and  most  of  it  has  distinct  and  profitable  uses.  These  millions  of 
acres  contain  a  final  and  favorable  answer  to  the  demand  for  more 
people — not  for  people  merely,  but  for  satisfied  citizens;  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  happy  homes  are  potentialized,  the  energy  of  com- 
merce there  lies  latent,  and  where  stretches  the  desert  are  scattered 
the  seeds  of  cities. 

ARIZONA'S  GOLDEN  OPPORTUNITY. 

The  situation  presents  to  Arizona  an  open  door  to  distinction 


1:^0       REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

in  the  world  of  advanced  economic  legislation.  With  a  land  prob- 
lem created  by  the  ownership  of  millions  of  acres  and  a  population 
problem  which  comes  of  the  natural  sparseness  of  a  semi-arid  coun- 
try, pressing  for  solution  simultaneously,  the  opportunity  for  notable 
achievement  is  as  conspicuous  as  the  responsibility  is  great.  Un- 
fortunately^, the  easiest  course,  and  therefore  the  likeliest  to  be 
pursued,  leads  sheep-like  along  the  rut  of  outgrown  and  decayed 
federal  and  state  land  policies,  but  the  course  of  courses  for  Ari- 
zona the  young  and  vigorous,  the  confident  and  clear-visioned, 
unbound  by  tradition,  unhampered  by  precedent,  is  to  urge  forth 
on  a  new  and  unbeaten  track.  Circumstances  are  wonderfully  pro- 
pitious, if  not  indeed  providential.  There  is  little  in  the  way  of 
existing  restrictive  statutes  to  be  dealt  with ;  in  the  absence  of  data 
a  land  policy  has  not  been  attempted,  and  therefore  not  bungled ; 
the  population  problem  has  been  dealt  with  only  along  stereotyped, 
and  generally  ineffective  lines;  the  ground  is  clear,  the  end  to  be 
achieved  plain,  the  means  at  hand.    Arizona  has  her  chance. 

AN  INFLEXIBLE  POLICY  WILL  NOT  DO. 

The  Commission  is  aware  that  the  people  are  at  present  mainly 
divided  into  what  may  be  termed  two  schools  of  thought,  and  their 
respective  views  concerning  a  State  land  policy  are  as  far  apart 
as  the  northern  and  southern  poles.  One  school — and  it  is  the 
oldest  school — holds  to  the  view  that  "land  is  land,"  wherever 
located,  and  regardless  of  varying  conditions;  that  it  is  only  val- 
uable to  the  State  as  it  represents  so  much  money,  the  amount  of 
which  is  at  once  determinable  by  multiplying  the  acreage  by  the 
price,  and  that  it  should  be  converted  into  money,  without  respect 
to  the  future  or  to  any  other  consideration,  as  speedily  as  possible. 
This  school's  tocsin  is,  '^Get  the  land  into  private  ownership;  get 
it  on  the  tax-rolls ;  create  wealth ' ' ;  and  in  sounding  it  no  thought  is 
taken  of  the  possibility  that  less  precipitation  and  more  investiga- 
tion might  discover  a  method  whereby  the  same  results  could  be 
achieved  with  more  certainty  and  to  a  far  greater  degree,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  and  incalculable  benefits. 

The  other  school,  composed  of  citizens  whose  aims  are  running 
in  the  right  direction,  objects  to  the  sale  of  any  State  land,  now  or 
ever,  on  the  theorv  that  the  enhancement  in  value  which  time  will 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  131 

bring  will  more  than  compensate  for  the  forswearing  of  early  rev- 
enues, and  provide  insurance  against  the  squandering  of  the  State's 
inheritance.  This  school  recognizes  the  sacredness  of  the  State's 
trust,  and  applies  to  it  a  puritanical  rather  than  a  practical  inter- 
pretation. Its  shibboleth,  ''Conserve  the  fortune  granted  to  the 
State,"  is  uttered  without  sufficient  reflection  that  there  is  no  con- 
servation equal  to  that  which  assists  in  development,  expansion  and 
progress — which,  while  it  does  not  destroy,  neither  stagnates,  but 
builds,  and  creates,  and  multiplies. 

To  neither  of  these  schools  does  the  Commission  belong,  and  yet 
it  claims  stock  in  both.  To  the  articles  of  neither  does  it  subscribe, 
and  yet  it  would  borrow  from  each.  It  does  not  go  to  the  extremes 
of  the  one  or  the  other,  and  yet  it  reaches  farther  than  the  two 
combined.  The  proposition  to  create  wealth  it  applauds,  and  the 
plea  for  conservation  it  commends,  because  they  go  hand  in  hand, 
and  mean  the  same  thing,  if  the  wealth  be  properly  distributed  and 
the  conservation  is  for  the  many,  but  recklessness  and  waste  are  not 
synonyms  for  the  creation  of  wealth,  and  true  conservation  does 
not  mean  hoarding. 

The  experience  of  other  States,  the  net  proceeds  of  painstaking 
investigation,  the  conclusions  of  conscientious  study,  the  light  of 
reason — all  forbid  the  indiscriminate  sale  of  the  State's  heritage. 
Such  a  policy  would  inevitably  result  in  parting  with  the  best  lands 
at  a  minimum  and  comparatively  insignificant  price,  and  their  early 
consolidation  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  retarding  or  forever  preventing 
development,  denying  homes  to  many  and  barring  the  door  to  that 
very  creation  of  wealth  which  constitutes  such  a  policy's  chief 
argument. 

Neither  do  the  facts  or  the  figures,  any  more  than  the  State's 
broader  requirements  and  the  people's  ideals,  support  an  all-leasing 
policy.  Estimates  might  truly  be  made  which,  if  hypothecated  upon 
actual  conditions,  and  those  conditions  could  be  regarded  as  uni- 
versal and  inflexible,  would  show  marked  advantages  of  income  to 
the  State,  in  the  long  run,  favoring  the  policy  of  leasing.  But  Ari- 
zona is  a  land  of  almost  unlimited  conditions,  and  no  fixed  plan  will 
fit  them  all.  Much  of  the  land  that  cannot  be  leased  at  all  may 
with  proper  development  be  sold  at  remunerative  prices,  and  at  the 
same  time  insure  the  making  of  homes  and  the  creation  of  wealth. 


]32  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

Much  that  cannot  be  sold,  without  sacrificing  the  hope  of  develop- 
ment and  closing  the  door  to  a  splendid  future,  may  be  leased  for 
a  consideration  worth  while. 

DEVELOPMENT  AND  ADMINISTRATION  GO  HAND  IN  HAND. 

It  is  the  Commission's  profound  conviction  that  the  develop- 
ment of  all  lands  belonging  to  Arizona,  both  school  and  institutional, 
should  be  intimately  associated  with  their  administration  and  dis- 
position ;  in  other  words,  that  before  title  to  an  acre  is  parted  with, 
the  dedication  of  that  acre  to  its  highest  and  most  important  eco- 
nomic use  should  be  insured. 

This  declaration,  we  are  aware,  invites  the  charge  that  it  is 
radical — some  will  say  revolutionary — but  so  does  every  departure 
from  the  beaten  road,  and  so  does  every  suggestion  of  interference 
with  the  cutting  of  those  luscious  melons  which  specially-favored 
individuals  have  been  wont  to  look  forward  to  and  rely  upon.  By 
such  means  and  such  means  only,  may  the  stupendous  economic  loss 
which  has  heretofore  been  synonymous  with  so-called  systems  for 
the  handling  of  State  lands  be  eliminated;  thus  and  thus  only  may 
the  curse  of  the  speculator  be  removed ;  thus  and  thus  only  may  the 
objects  for  which  Congress  designed  its  munificent  grants  be  achiev- 
ed in  full  degree,  and  thus  and  thus  only  may  Arizona's  limitless 
ranges  be  populated  with  people  rather  than  cattle  and  the  desert 
places  transformed  from  comparative  waste  to  a  land  of  the  vino 
and  fig. 

Briefly,  the  Commission  advocates  a  policy  of  land  efficiency, 
elimination  of  energy-  and  money-waste,  clear  understanding  and 
hearty  co-operation  between  government  and  citizen.  The  plan  in- 
cludes classification,  demonstration,  and  in  necessary  cases  recla- 
mation, directly  by  the  State  or  by  co-operation  with  private  in- 
dividuals or  with  the  federal  government. 

Classification  should  be  scientific  and  thorough,  in  order  that 
the  highest  use  may  be  accurately  ascertained  not  only  of  all  lands 
belonging  to  the  State,  but  also  of  those  surrounding,  adjacent  to 
or  in  any  w^ay  connected  with  them  or  affecting  their  development. 

Demonstration  would  prove  an  invaluable  chart  for  prospective 
purchasers,  affording  reliable  information  as  to  financial  and  labor 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  yp/] 

requirements,  of  methods,  crops  and  probable  returns,  thus  insuring, 
on  a  basis  of  reasonable  diligence,  energy  and  intelligence,  that  fair 
measure  of  success  which  is  pre-requisite  to  a  contented  citizenry. 

Reclamation  is  essential  if  the  highest  efficiency  of  some  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  Arizona's  so-called  desert  acres  is  to  be  real- 
ized, an(^  if  the  cry  for  population  is  to  be  adequately  answered. 
The  State  can  give  no  greater  service  to  its  people,  or  a  larger,  more 
lasting  contribution  to  humanity,  than  to  draw  the  water  from  the 
depths  or  harness  its  floods  and  thereby  replace  the  leanness  of  a 
thirsty  land  with  the  wealth  and  plenty  of  a  satisfied  soil. 

THE  COMMISSION'S  PLAN. 

Reduced  to  more  definite  terms,  the  Commission's  plan  would 
be  to  determine  the  highest  use  to  which  the  State's  lands  may 
be  put;  to  make  not  only  possible  but  practical  their  development 
to  such  maximum  of  usefulness,  and  then  to  sell  them  to  bona  fide 
home-makers  on  a  basis  of  mutual  advantage  which  will  insure  to 
the  State  reimbursement  and  a  fair  return,  and  to  the  citizen  an 
honest  roof  to  cover  an  honest  head,  just  remuneration  for  his  toil 
and  enterprise  and  a  pardonable  pride  in  his  government.  In  the 
case  of  lands  susceptible  of  agricultural  development  the  State  will 
so  realize  more,  directly,  than  by  any  other  plan  which  has  ever 
been  tried  or  advanced,  and  inestimably  more,  indirectly,  in  the 
shape  of  wealth  created  and  population  gained,  while  the  family 
seeking  a  spot  on  the  earth's  surface  to  call  its  own  will  be  enabled 
to  achieve  that  worthy  ambition  without  assuming  the  frequently 
fatal  hazards  of  unknoAvn  conditions  or  risking  failure  through  in- 
flated values  fixed  by  middle-men  or  speculators.  They  will  willingly 
pay  an  advance  over  government  prices,  as  easy  terms,  favorable 
conditions,  accurate  information  as  to  requirements,  and  the  State's 
active  interest  in  their  welfare,  will  more  than  compensate  for  the 
difference.  Wild-catting,  the  immoral  practice  of  inducing  ignorant 
and  susceptible  homeseekers,  in  consideration  of  handsome  fees, 
to  settle  where  they  cannot  hope  to  make  a  livelihood  or  to  succeed 
in  reclamation  or  development  work  for  which  they  are  not 
equipped,  either  financially  or  by  experience,  will  come  to  an  end, 
for  home-seekers  will  soon  learn  to  look  with  confidence  to  the 
State  which  takes  a  personal,  sincere  interest  in  its  settlers,  helps 


134  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

them  to  success,  sells  them  no  gold  bricks  and  discourages  others 
from  doing  so. 

An  easily  comprehended  illustration  of  the  practical  working 
of  the  proposed  plan  is  supplied  by  several  districts  in  which  irri- 
gation by  pumping  has  passed  the  stage  of  theory  and  become  a 
practice.  In  almost  all  of  these  districts  the  State  owns  consider- 
able land,  awaiting  the  well-driller,  the  brush-clearer  and  the  plough- 
man. The  needs  and  requirements  of  the  prospective  settler  are 
known — have  been  made  known  by  actual  settlers.  The  depth  to 
water,  the  sort  of  a  well  required  and  the  area  it  will  irrigate,  the 
cost  of  a  plant,  the  products  that  may  be  grown  and  when,  and  all 
of  those  things  which  go  to  reduce  agriculture  to  a  science,  are 
matters  of  definite  information.  What  the  State  should  receive 
for  this  land — i.  e.,  what  the  prospective  home-maker  can  afford  to 
pay,  or  in  other  words,  the  capitalization  upon  which  he  can  make 
a  success  and  be  insured  a  sufficient  reward  for  his  industry — is 
easily  ascertainable.  At  such  a  price,  and  on  terms — say  twenty- 
year  payments — so  easy  as  to  increase  the  insurance  against  failure, 
this  land  should  be  sold,  in  acreages  limited  by  conditions,  to  actual 
settlers  who  are  first  advised  not  less  clearly  of  the  obstacles  they 
must  overcome  than  of  the  advantages  they  will  enjoy. 

Thus  far  the  plan  is  simple  enough.  The  pioneer  has  already 
performed  the  work  of  classification  and  demonstration,  and  all 
that  remains  is  to  attract  other  settlers.  Its  importance  grows, 
however,  as  it  comes  to  comprehend  the  valleys  and  mesas,  great 
and  small,  aggregating  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres,  which, 
possessing  possibilities,  have  nevertheless,  by  reason  of  the  diffi- 
culties they  present,  been  left  to  the  cactii,  the  horned  toad  and 
the  lizard,  or  at  best  furnish  range  for  wandering  herds.  In  the 
light  of  past  and  current  achievements,  he  is  indeed  a  pessimist, 
an  indifferent  student  or  an  interested  complainant  against  the 
will  of  progress,  who  contends  that  these  great  uncharted  areas 
are  incapable  of  higher  development,  but  certain  as  it  is  that  their 
virgin  soil  contains  the  answer  to  Arizona's  cry  for  population,  it 
is  equally  certain  that  the  answer  will  not  be  forthcoming,  with- 
out a  supplementation  of  the  efforts  of  individual  settlers.  The 
struggles  and  trials  of  pioneers  have  availed  much  in  the  country's 
settlement,  but  the  peculiar  nature  of  Arizona's  unreclaimed  stretch- 
es calls  for  something  besides  pioneering,  something  additional  to 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  ^35 

the  enduring  of  hardships  and  privations,  something  more  than  un- 
aided bull-dog-  tenacity  and  physical  perseverance.  In  these  areas 
nature  has  set  a  task  too  great  for  one  person,  however  willing, 
however  intelligent,  however  persistent.  Leaving  aside  the  places 
which  will  respond  only  to  the  investment  of  capital  for  extensive 
works,  a  course  of  investigation  and  experimentation  is  required, 
too  technical  and  too  expensive  for  the  average  person  seeking  a 
home.  Co-operation  is  necessary,  and  such  co-operation  there  should 
be,  between  the  State,  which  owns  the  land  and  seeks  population, 
and  the  settler,  whose  brain  and  brawn,  if  given  a  fair  opportunity, 
will  add  the  touch  of  transformation. 

The  State  owns  much  land,  now  employed  for  grazing  only, 
where  agricultural  development,  through  the  medium  of  irrigation 
by  pumping,  is  doubtless  practicable.  The  actual  possibilities,  how- 
ever, and  the  prerequisites  to  success  are  indefinite  if  not  unknown. 
Under  the  circumstances  home-seekers  could  not  afford  to  assume 
the  hazards  of  settlement,  and  in  most  cases  would  fail  if  they 
should.  It  is  cumbersome  and  impractical  for  numbers  of  them, 
inexperienced  and  with  diverse  interests  and  many  ideas,  to  com- 
bine for  the  work.  The  situation  presents  no  allurements  for 
private  capital,  for  the  State  owns  the  land,  and  the  State  Consti- 
tution wisely  precludes  its  sale  in  large  tracts  such  as  private  cap- 
ital, seeking  plethoric  profits,  with  their  attendant  hardships  upon 
the  settler,  demands.  It  remains  for  the  State,  not  only  in  the 
performance  of  that  highest  function  of  government  which  seeks 
first  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  its  people,  but  as  well  in  its 
capacity  as  a  far-sighted,  forehanded,  prudent  business  organiza- 
tion, to  provide  means  to  the  desired  end.  It  remains  for  the 
State,  after  ascertaining  the  areas  giving  promise  of  the  least  ex- 
pensive and  most  certain  development,  to  demonstrate  what  is  re- 
quired for  such  development — to  determine,  in  short,'  accurately 
and  in  every  essential  detail,  those  things  which  in  numerous  and 
more  highly-favored  districts,  heretofore  referred  to,  have  been 
determined  and  demonstrated  by  the  settlers  themselves.  Where 
irrigation  by  pumping  is  found  practicable,  the  State  should  erect 
model  plants,  to  serve  not  only  as  authentic  patterns  for  other 
plants  within  their  several  carefully  defined  districts,  but  to  af- 
ford a  basis  for  information  invaluable  to  prospective  makers  of 
homes  as  well  as  for  the  proper  valuation  of  the  land.     To  be  sold 


136  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

with  the  land  on  which  situated,  the  plants  need  not  represent 
a  loss  in  any  sense,  or  even  an  expense,  but  merely  a  stock  in  trade 
to  be  carried  for  a  short  time  only.  Both  from  the  economic  stand- 
point of  the  citizen  and  the  mercenary  standpoint  of  the  State  as 
a  going  business  concern  the  investment  would  prove  highly  profit- 
able, for  what  the  settler  could  probably  not  do  at  all,  or  only  at 
a  ruinous  and  prohibitive  cost  of  time  and  money,  the  State  could 
do  at  a  minimum  of  expense  with  a  maximum  of  efficiency,  and  be 
assured  manifold  reimbursement.  To  cover  the  probability  of  areas 
— in  fact,  numbers  of  such  are  known  to  exist — so  situated  and  con- 
ditioned as  to  be  more  efficiently  and  economically  reclaimed  by 
means  of  plants  of  larger  than  individual  capacity,  the  plan  might 
well  be  broadened. 

Nor  'should  there  be  any  hesitation  or  backwardness  about  in- 
cluding within  the  scope  of  this  general  policy,  of  developing  while 
administering  and  disposing  of  the  State's  lands,  comprehensive 
provision  for  assisting  and  promoting,  and  when  necessary  en- 
tirely assuming  reclamation  projects  involving  the  construction  ol 
storage  and  diversion  works  to  serve  lands  owned  wholly  or  partly 
by  the  State. 

In  cases  where  bodies  of  land  are  owned  wholly  by  the  State, 
and  the  sites  for  storage  and  rights  to  the  water  necessary  for  their 
reclamation  are  in  private  ownership,  a  definite  means  should  be 
afforded  whereby  co-operation  on  an  equitable  basis,  but  under 
State  control,  will  bring  about  the  construction  of  the 
necessary  irrigation  works  and  the  development  of  the 
State's  ^  lands.  Since  the  law  prohibits  the  placing  of 
an  encumbrance  upon  the  lands  granted  to  the  State,  they 
could  not  be  employed  as  a  basis  of  security  for  the  purchase 
of  water  rights  in  a  project  designed  for  their  development,  but 
there  is  entire  feasibility  to  the  plan  for  the  State  to  enter  into 
mutually  conditioned  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  such  water 
rigMs,  to  be  in  turn  transferred  to  and  paid  for  by  the  purchasers 
of  the  State's  land,  and  as  a  further  aid  and  encouragement  to  the 
owners  of  the  project,  to  invest  the  inviolable  trust  funds  arising 
from  the  sale  of  lands  in  a  certain  percentage  of  the  bonds  or  stocks 
of  the  enterprise.  It  were  difficult  to  conceive  a  safer  investment 
than  the  one  afforded  by  a  reclamation  project  that  would  be  re- 
quired to  withstand  the  State's  engineering  investigation,  meet  all 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  137 

of  the  State's  requirements  as  to  construction  and  operation,  and 
remain  virtually  under  State  control  until  paid  for  and  transferred 
to  the  ownership  of  the  settlers  under  it.  And  it  were  still  more 
difficult  ,to  imagine  a  more  remunerative  scheme  for  the  disposition 
of  the  lands  owmed  by  the  State,  which  are  situated  favorably  for 
reclamation  by  stored  waters. 

Many  other  combinations,  presenting  opportunities  for  reclam- 
ation and  development  by  means  of  safe  and  sane  co-operation  be- 
tween the  State  and  other  parties  in  interest,  will  be  found,  and 
legislative  authority  adequate  to  meet  the  requirements  of  each 
such  situation  should  be  provided.  There  is  no  good  reason  w^hy  thcj 
State  should  not  be  the  senior  business  partner  in  every  sound, 
legitimate  enterprise  for  the  development  of  its  own  property,  and 
the  big  brother  of  every  settler  and  home-maker  who  proposes,  by 
the  investment  of  his  capital,  brain  and  brawn,  to  assist  in  making 
green  the  desert  places. 

FEDERAL  CO-OPERATION  AND  STATE  RECLAMATION. 

Co-operation  with  the  federal  government  should  also  be  looked 
to  as  a  practical  means,  in  appropriate  cases,  of  solving  the  State's 
well-nigh  unlimited  reclamation  problem.  In  view  of  the  numerous 
instances  in  which  such  co-operation,  in  this  State,  would  be  feasible, 
and  of  the  recent  enthusiastic  declarations  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  favoring  such  plan  of  development  for  the  so-called  arid 
Southwest,  the  subject  takes  on  unusual  significance.  The  Secre- 
tary proposes,  roughly,  that  the  federal  government's  receipts 
from  the  lease  of  coal,  oil  and  phosphate  lands,  and  of  w^ater  and 
electrical  power  sites,  be  invested  in  co-operative  reclamation  en- 
terprises. This  suggestion  is  significant  and  timely,  and  should 
meet  with  a  prompt  response  from  Arizona,  which  has  no  need 
greater  than  that  of  developing  its  practically  limitless  natural  re- 
source of  cultivable  land. 

The  recommendation  is  offered  that  the  duty  be  imposed  upon 
the  State  Land  Department  of  making  an  investigation  of  such  stor- 
age or  diversion  projects  within  the  State  as  appear  to  be  peculiarly 
adapted  for  construction  in  co-operation  with  the  United  States,  or 
by  the  State  independently,  and  of  placing;  the  essential  facts  with 


138  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

respect  thereto  before  the  next  Legislature,  accompanied  by  recom- 
mendations relating  to  the  physical  requirements,  and  to  the  form- 
ulation of  a  legislative  program  for  gradually  and  systematically 
carrying  the  policy  of  State  reclamation  into  profitable  and  bene- 
ficial effect.  For  the  present,  such  authorization  would  seem  to 
meet  the  demands  of  prudent,  cautious  governmental  enterprise, 
while  preparing  the  way  Avithout  undue  loss  of  valuable  time,  for 
important  activities. 

IMMEDIATE  NEEDS. 

It  would  be  unwise,  however,  to  delay  all  movement  .in  the 
direction  of  actual  reclamation,  and  so  far  as  the  same  may  be 
effected  by  minor  operations  all  necessary  legislative  authority 
should  be  at  once  extended. 

The  Commission  recommends  that  power  be  conferred  upon  the 
State  Land  Department,  as  a  preliminary  to  offering  for  sale  the 
lands  affected,  to  conduct  investigations  and  experiments,  with 
the  assistance  of  the  State  Engineer  and  State  Agricultural  Col- 
lege, for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  requirements  and  demon- 
strating the  possibilities  of  agriculture  within  areas  adapted  for 
dry  farming,  with  or  without  supplemental  waters  secured  by  flood 
embankments  or  pumping,  or  for  irrigation  by  pumping  from  shal- 
low wells;  and  authority  to  enter  into  co-operative  contracts  with 
individuals,  companies  or  corporations  owning  irrigation  works 
or  sites  and  water  privileges  for  irrigation  works,  for  the  reclam- 
ation of  State  lands.  For  the  last  named  purpose,  authority  should 
be  given  for  the  investment  of  moneys  derived  from  the  sale  of 
lands  and  deposited  in  inviolable  trust  funds,  under  such  conditions 
as  will  safeguard  the  funds  and  offer  no  conflict  with  the  laws  re- 
lating to  their  investment. 

SALE  OF  STATE  LANDS. 

In  harmony  with  the  views  heretofore  expressed,  the  Commis- 
sion recommends  that  authorization  be  given  for  the  sale  of  lands 
capable,  by  any  known  and  demonstrated  method,  of  successful 
agriculture,  not  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  cultivable  area  of  State 
lands  in  a  section,  in  excess  of  160  acres,  to  be  sold  in  any  one  year. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  139 

To  prevent  the  sale  of  lands  of  questionable  value  for  agricultural 
purposes  or  the  adaptability  of  which  has  not  been  insured  by 
demonstration,  no  lands  should  be  sold  for  less  than  ten  dollars  per 
acre,  and  none  for  less  than  the  appraised  value  thereof,  ten  per 
cent  of  the  purchase  price  to  be  paid  down,  and  the  balance  in  pay- 
ments extending  over  a  period  of  twenty  years,  deferred  payments  to 
draw  five  per  cent  interest.  To  these  conditions  must  of  course  be 
added  such  as  are  imposed  by  the  Enabling  Act  and  the  Constitu- 
tion, while  the  authority  to  prescribe  all  necessary  rules  and  regula- 
tions should  be  vested  in  the  State  Land  Department. 

RECLAMATION  PROJECT  LANDS. 

Under  established  reclamation  projects,  whether  owned  by  the 
government  or  by  individuals,  companies  or  corporations,  the  pro- 
posed limitation  of  sales  to  160  acres  in  a  section  should  be  removed, 
as  most  of  the  State  land  so  situated  is  already  under  a  fairly  high 
state  of  cultivation  or  has  already  reached  an  approximation  of  its 
true  value.  Sales  of  such  lands  should  be  limited  to  eighty  acres 
or  less,  and  the  minimum  price  fixed  at  fifty  dollars  per  acre,  or  at 
a  price  sufficient,  after  providing  reimbursement  for  such  water 
rights  as  it  might  be  found  expedient  to  purchase  for  the  land, 
and  such  improvements  as  may  be  appurtenant  to"  them,  to  net 
fifty  dollars  per  acre. 

ANOTHER  EXCEPTION. 

Extended  reference  is  in  another  place  made  to  the  pending 
exchange  of  lands  in  the  Navajo  and  Moqui  Indian  reservations  for 
lands  widely  scattered  over  the  State;  to  the  Commission's  objec- 
tions to  the  exchange,  and  to  the  fact  that  a  few  settlers  and  some 
other  innocent  purchasers  of  small  amounts  of  the  so-called  scrip 
may  suffer  embarrassment  in  the  event  that  the  exchange  shall  be 
disapproved.  In  order  that  these  settlers  and  innocent  purchasers 
of  scrip  for  small  tracts  of  land  may  be  protected  against  unneces- 
sary hardship,  a  practical  plan  of  State  aid  is  suggested.  The  Com- 
mission recommends  that  the  State  Land  Department  be  authorized, 
upon  the  disapproval  of  the  proposed  exchange,  or  any  portion 
thereof,  to  select  such  of  the  lands  as  by  the  act  of  disapproval  be- 
come public  lands  of  the  United  St^ites,  in  sntipfa/'tio'^  of  the  grant 


140  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMxMISSION 

for  the  payment  of  the  bonds  and  accrued  interest  thereon,  of 
Maricopa,  Pima,  Yavapai  and  Coconino  counties,  and  upon  securing 
title  thereto  to  offer  the  lands  for  sale,  without  restrictions  or  limita- 
tions as  to  price  or  acreage  other  than  are  imposed  by  the  Enabling 
Act  and  the  Constitution,  and  under  such  provisions  of  statutory 
law  and  such  rules  and  regulations  of  the  State  Land  Department, 
not  inconsistent  with  the  Enabling  Act  and  the  Constitution,  as  will 
favor  their  sale  to  the  persons  dispossessed.  By  this  means  actual 
settlers  upon  lands  involved  in  the  attempted  fraudulent  exchange, 
or  persons  having  improvements  thereon,  can  be  nfforded  relief  ^o 
the  extent  of  160  acres  of  agricultural  land  or  640  acres  of  grazinjjr 
land,  without  loss  to  the  State  or  serious  departure  from  the 
general  land  policy  which  has  been  outlined. 

LEASING  OF  STATE  LANDS. 

Provision  should  be  made  for  leasing,  in  conformity  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Enabling  Act  and  the  State  Constitution,  and 
under  rules,  regulations  and  rates  to  be  prescribed  by  the  State 
Land  Department,  of  all  lands  desirable  only  for  grazing,  purposes 
and  all  other  lands  not  designed  for  early  sale. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATION  ON  GRAZING  LAND. 

Section  11,  Article  X,  of  the  State  Constitution,  provides  "that 
no  individual,  corporation  or  association  shall  ever  be  allowed  to 
purchase  or  lease  more  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  agri- 
cultural land,  or  more  than  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  grazing 
land." 

The  conception  of  this  Constitutional  limitation  was  beneficent 
and  its  purpose  just,  the  aim  being  to  prevent  the  accumulation  and 
monopolization  of  large  areas  in  the  ownership  or  control  of  favored 
persons,  to  the  injury  of  small  farmers  or  stock-raisers  and  to  the 
detriment  of  the  State.  The  Commission  would  not  recommend  the 
removal  of  this  or  any  other  safeguard  against  monopoly.  It  is 
suggested,  however,  that  the  restriction  goes  further  than  is 
necessary,  and  to  that  extent  causes  loss  and  helps  to  defeat  its 
own  purpose. 

There  are  a  number  of  localities  in  the  State,  adapted  only  to 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  141 

the  grazing  of  cattle,  where  hundreds  of  school  sections  are  lying 
idle,  or  are  being  utilized  without  compensation,  because  of  the 
limitation  with  respect  to  leasing.  They  are  so  situated  that  one 
section  has  no  attractions  for  a  stockman,  bi^r  or  little,  and  in  some 
cases  the  same  might  be  true  of  half  a  d!;/(Mi  sections,  or  more. 
Water  is  scarce  and  its  development  expensive  Without  a  con- 
siderable range  appurtenant,  the  expenditure  involved  in  the  de- 
velopment of  water  is  not  justified.  The  small  stDckman  who,  under 
other  and  more  favorable  conditions,  might  find  a  single  section 
desirable,  has  no  use  for  it  in  a  locality  where  there  is  no  w^ater. 
He  has  not  the  means  for  the  development  or  water,  and  if  he  has 
its  development  is  not  justified  by  a  range  limited  to  six  hundred 
and  forty  acres.  Therefore  the  little  stockman  is  not  protected 
or  benefited,  in  such  cases,  by  the  limit  imposed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  consequence  is  that  the  land  lies  idle,  without  revenue 
to  the  State,  or  some  big  cattle  outfit,  controlling  the  range  by 
virtue  of  the  possession  of  scattered  sections  and  all  the  available 
water  in  the  neighborhood,  runs  its  cattle  over  the  school  lands 
as  over  the  public  domain,  and  has  the  very  potent  excuse  for 
failure  to  reimburse  the  State,  that  it  is  not  allowed  by  law  lo 
lease  more  than  a  section. 

The  Commission  recommends  that  a  Constitutional  amendment 
be  referred  to  the  people,  removing  the  limitation  so  far  as  it  af- 
fects the  leasing  of  grazing  land,  and  that,  by  statutory  enactment, 
the  State  Land  Department  be  empowered  to  impose  such  restric- 
tions, and  to  adopt  such  rules  and  regulations  with  respect  to  the 
leasing  of  grazing  lands  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  monopoliza- 
tion. In  this  wise  the  beneficient  purpose  of  the  Constitutional 
limitation  can  be  subserved,  and  its  ill  effects  averted. 

IMPROVEMENTS. 

The  Commission  is  steadfast  in  the  belief  that  the  State  should 
be  held  in  no  wise  responsible  for  improvements  placed  upon  any 
State  lands,  and  that  no  compensation  or  reimbursement  should  be 
provided  therefor,  upon  the  expiration  or  surrender  of  leases,  or 
at  any  other  time.  The  State  is  now  involved  in  complications,  re- 
lating to  reimbursement  for  improvements  placed  upon  school  lands 
prior   to   statehood,  the   settlement   of  which   will   be   attended   by 


142  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

losses  greater  than  the  total  of  the  rentals  realized  since  1897,  when 
the  law  providing  for  reimbursement  was  passed.  In  addition  to 
these  losses  many  lessees  will  be  dissatisfied  with  appraisals  placed 
upon  their  improvements  and  litigation,  alike  expensive  to  pocket 
and  injurious  to  disposition,  will  ensue.  Every  consideration  of 
State  responsibility  for  improvements  on  leased  land  is  an  evil  to 
be  shunned. 

The  present  law,  however,  which  vests  in  the  State  the  title 
to  all  improvements  on  leased  lands,  acts  somewhat  as  a  deterrent 
to  leasing.  Although  in  actual  practice  the  lessee  is  accorded  ample 
protection  against  loss,  the  feeling  is  more  or  less  general  that  the 
provision  is  unnecessarily  stringent,  and  it  is  believed  that  but  for 
it  there  would  have  been  a  considerable  increase  in  applications  for 
leases.  To  remedy  this  situation,  the  Commission  recommends  that 
the  lessee  be  permitted,  prior  to  or  upon  the  expiration  of  his  lease, 
to  remove  all  buildings,  fences,  corrals  and  other  transportable  im- 
provements as,  he  may  have  placed  upon  the  land,  or  to  sell  them, 
with  the  permission  of  the  State  Land  Department,  to  a  succeeding 
lessee.  As  a  further  safeguard  against  the  loss  of  improvements, 
the  lessee  should  be  accorded  a  preferred  right  of  renewal,  at  a  re- 
assessed rental  to  be  fixed  by  the  State  Land  Department,  when, 
upon  the  expiration  of  the  lease,- the  land  described  therein  is  to 
be  re-leased. 


IMMIGRATION  COMMISSIONER. 

In  order  that  the  best  results  may  be  secured  from  the  admin- 
istration, by  sale  and  lease,  of  the  State's  lands,  an  official  should 
be  designated  by  an  appropriate  title,  such  as  immigration  commis- 
sioner, to  serve  with  and  under  the  appointment  and  authority  of 
the  State  Land  Department,  and  to  have  charge  of  the  promotion 
of  sales  and  leases.  The  work  of  publicity  necessarily  attendant 
upon  the  specific  duties  of  such  an  officer  should  also,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Commission,  be  expanded,  to  include  in  their  scope  the  ac- 
quirement and  dissemination  of  accurate  information  respecting 
all  counties,  towns,  districts  and  industries  of  the  State,  whether 
directly  connected  with  the  sale  and  leasing  of  State  lands  or 
not. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  143 

COLONIZATION. 

Through  the  activities  of  such  an  officer,  and  by  means  of  laws 
appropriate  to  the  carrying  into  effect  of  the  State  land  policy 
which  has  been  outlined,  desirable  colonization  enterprises  could 
and  should  be  especially  encouraged. 

WILD-CATTING. 

The  Commission  has  frequently  dwelt  upon  the  evils  and  ills 
of  the  practice  of  land  "wild-catting",  by  means  of  which  unscrupu- 
lous agents  induce  unsophisticated  people  to  settle  or  file  upon 
government  lands  so  situated  as  to  render  the  making  of  homes 
highly  improbable,  if  not  indeed  impossible.  This  species  of  crime 
cannot  be  too  severely  condemned,  nor  its  injury  to  the  State  in 
which  it  is  practiced  too  clearly  understood.  Legislation  which  will 
constitute  wilful  misrepresentation  respecting  unimproved  lands  a 
felony  is  again  urged.  It  is  believed  that  a  division  of  publicity, 
such  as  has  heretofore  been  suggested,  will  go  far  toward  the  pre- 
vention of  "wild-catting." 


144  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

MISCELLANEOUS  SUBJECTS 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF  FUNDS. 

Particular  attention  is  called  to  the  necessity  existing  for  the 
establishment,  by  law,  of  separate  funds  corresponding  to  the  dif- 
ferent purposes  for  which  lands,  granted  or  confirmed  by  the  En- 
abling Act,  are  being  administered  by  the  Commission. 

Confirmatory  of  a  similar  requirement  contained  in  the  En- 
abling Act,  Section  7.  Article  X,  Constitution  of  Arizona,  pro- 
vides: 

"A  separate  fund  shall  be  established  for  each  of  the  sev- 
eral objects  for  which  the  said  grants  are  made  and  confirmed 
by  the  said  Enabling  Act  to  the  State,  and  whenever  any  moneys 
shall  be  in  any  manner  derived  from  any  of  said  lands,  the  same 
shall  be  deposited  by  the  State  Treasurer  in  the  fund  corres- 
ponding to  the  grant  under  which  the  particular  land  producing 
such  moneys  was  by  said  Enabling  Act,  conveyed  or  confirmed. 
"The  State  Treasurer  shall  keep  all  such  moneys  invested 
in  safe,  interest-bf.aring  securities,  which  securities  shall  be 
approved  by  the  Governor  and   Secretary  of  State     *     *     *  ." 

This  requirement  of  the  Enabling  Act  and  mandate  of  the 
Constitution  has  not  been  fulfilled,  though  the  Commission  has 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  State  Treasurer  moneys  received  for  at 
least  three  of  the  purposes  "for  which  the  said  grants  were  made 
and  confirmed."  These  moneys  have  been  placed  by  the  Treasurer 
in  special  funds,  pending  the  establishment  of  the  funds  appropriate 
to  them. 

PERMANENT   SCHOOL    FUND. 

Though  all  of  the  grants  of  land  made  and  confirmed  by  the 
Enabling  Act  are  designed  for,  and  if  wisely  administered,  will 
effect  a  common  end — that  of  relieving  the  citizens  of  the  State  of 
burdensome  taxation — and  therefore  should  be  guarded  in  each 
instance  with  the  same  jealous  care,  no  other  one  of  the  trusts 
accepted  by  the  State  is  in  its  nature  as  sacred,  nor  in  its  mag- 
nitude as  important  as  that  dedicated  to  the  common  schools.  Tn 
the  establishment  of  the  fund,  therefore,  which  shall  serve  as  the 
depository  of  the  moneys  received  from  the  grant  for  common 
schools,  the  utmost  care  should  be  exercised,  to  the  end  that  the 
great  and  beneficent  heritage  bestowed  upon  Arizona's  children 
may  be  honestly  conserved,  and  not  frittered  away — to  the  end  that 
the  plenty  of  today  may  not  only  perform  its  present  duty,  but  be 
employed  as  insurance  against  the  needs  of  the  future. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  145 

The  Commission  most  earnestly  recommends  the  establishment, 
not  merely  of  a  school  fund,  a  temporary  abiding  place  for  the 
moneys  derived  from  the  several  common  school  grants  until  they 
can  be  dissipated  by  apportionment,  but  of  a.  permanent,  inviolable 
school  fund,  into  which  all  moneys  received  from  the  sale  of  school 
lands  shall  be  placed,  for  investment  in  "safe,  interest-bearing  se- 
curities," and  of  which  only  the  income  may  be  used. 

Into  such  a  fund  should  also  be  placed  the  proceeds  of  sales, 

by  the  United  States,  of  public  lands  lying  within  the  State,  in 

accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Section  27  of  the  Enabling 

Act,  as  follows: 

"Sec.  27.  That  five  per  centum  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of 
public  lands  lying  within  said  State  which  shall  be  sold  by  the 
United  States  subsequent  to  the  admission  of  said  State  into 
the  Union,  after  deducting  all  the  expenses  incident  to  such 
sales,  shall  be  paid  to  the  said  State  to  be  used  as  a  permanent 
inviolable  fund,  the  interest  of  which  only  shall  be  expended 
for  the  support  of  the  common  schools  within  said  State." 

From  the  above  source  there  has  been  paid  into  the  State 
Treasury  the  sum  of  $7,362.26,  which  may  be  said  to  constitute 
the  foundation  or  nucleus  of  a  permanent  inviolable  school  fund, 
created  by  the  wisdom  of  Congress.  Reinforced  by  the  proceeds  of 
such  school  lands  as  may  be  ordered  sold,  it  will  in  after  years 
justify  the  foresight  of  its  founders. 

The  Enabling  Act  also  provides  that  after  the  payment  of  the 
bonds  and  accrued  interest  thereon  of  Maricopa,  Pima,  Yavapai 
and  Coconino  counties,  for  which  one  million  acres  was  granted, 
the  proceeds  of  the  sale  or  lease,  rents,  issues  or  other  profits  of 
the  remainder,  ''shall  be  added  to  and  become  a  part  of  the  perman- 
ent school  fund  of  said  State,  the  income  therefrom  only  to  be  used 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  common  schools  of  the  State." 

From  the  various  sources  at  hand  a  permanent  fund  can  within 
a  comparatively  few  years  be  created,  the  income  from  which,  when 
joined  to  the  revenue  from  school  land  leases,  will  wholly  support 
the  common  schools  of  the  State,  and  do  it  well. 
SCHOOL    LAND   INCOME    FUND. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  Enabling  Act  and  the  Constitution  the 
income  from  the  permanent  inviolable  school  fund,  and  any  moneys 
derived  from  the  grant  of  lands  for  common  school  purposes,  may 
be  devoted  to  the  support  of  the  common  schools.  As  has  been 
suggested,  the  proceeds  from  the  sale^  of  school  lands  should  also 


146  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

be  placed  in  a  permanent  fund,  but  rentals,  which  constitute  an  in- 
come comparable  to  that  of  interest,  should,  with  the  income  from 
the  inviolable  fund  be  placed  in  a  school  land  income  fund,  and 
apportioned  as  other  school  funds  are  apportioned. 

In  providing  for  the  apportionment  of  the  funds  at  present  in 
the  hands  of  the  State  Treasurer,  cognizance  should  be  given  to  the 
circumstance  that  the  moneys  received  for  permits  to  March  15, 
1913,  were  by  error  distributed  to  the  counties  from  which  they 
came,  as  under  the  Territorial  law.  By  this  error — in  addition  to  the 
feature  of  its  illegality — some  counties  received  sums  greater  than 
their  proper  apportionment,  while  others  received  less.  The  dis- 
crepancies can  be  easily  adjusted  in  the  apportionment  of  the  school 
land  rental  moneys  now  in  the  State  Treasury.  At  the  same  time 
there  should  be  taken  into  account  certain  sums,  paid  to  the  various 
counties  by  school  land  lessees  prior  to  Statehood,  and  which,  though 
credited  on  the  first  year's  permits  issued  by  the  Commission  sub- 
sequent to  Statehood,  were  retained  by  the  counties. 

UNIVERSITY   LAND   FUND. 

The  university  land  fund  is  the  beneficiary  of  two  grants — that 
of  February  18,  1881,  which,  as  set  forth  in  detail  in  another  part 
of  this  report,  consists  mainly  of  timber  lands  in  Coconino  county, 
and  the  grant  made  by  the  Enabling  Act.  of  200,000  acres  of  land, 
which  is  being  selected. 

It  will  be  unnecessary  to  add,  in  setting  forth  the  Commission's 
views,  to  what  has  been  said  regarding  the  desirability  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  permanent  inviolable  university  fund,  in  which — 
conforming  to  the  plan  proposed  for  the  permanent  school  fund — 
should  be  deposited  all  moneys  received  from  the  sale  of  university 
land,  or  from  the  sale  of  university  timber,  the  income  from  such 
permanent  fund  and  the  proceeds  of  university  la'nd  rentals  only 
to  be  used.  Upon  the  basis,  on  one  hand,  of  practically  assured  re- 
ceipts from  timber  sales,  and  on  the  other  hand,  of  the  establish- 
ment of  a  progressive  policy  of  State  land  development,  the  Cora- 
mission  believes  it  is  not  extravagant  in  estimating  that  within 
twenty  years  the  annual  revenue  from  the  permanent  university 
land  fund  and  rentals  will  equal  the  income  on  a  capitalization  of 
three  million  dollars. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  147 

AGRICULTURAL    AND    MECHANICAL    COLLEGES    AND 
SCHOOL   OF    MINES. 

Paragraphs  4501-4505,  Chapter  3,  Title  42,  Revised  Statutes 
1913,  reserve  the  grant  of  150,000  acres  for  agricultural  and  me- 
chanical colleges,  and  the  grant  of  150,000  acres  for  a  school  of 
mines,  as  made  by  the  Enabling  Act,  and  the  proceeds  of  said  lands 
as  sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  to  the  college  and  school  re- 
spectively of  the  characters  designated  by  the  grants,  now  estab- 
lished by  and  in  connection  with  the  University  of  Arizona.  The 
paragraphs  cited  also  authorize  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  Uni- 
versity ''to  expend  such  portion  of  the  university  fund  and  such 
other  funds  as  may  be  provided  for  the  said  university  as  they  may 
deem  expedient  for  the  erection  and  furnishing  of  suitable  buildings, 
and  the  support  and  maintenance  of  said  university. ' ' 

The  Commission  is  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  this  authoriza- 
tion is  exceedingly  short-sigjited  liberality.  It  makes  of  the  rich 
university  grants  heretofore  enumerated,  as  well  as  of  the  grants 
for  agricultural  and  mechanical  colleges  and  school  of  mines,  merely 
checking  bank  accounts,  to  be  dissipated  as  fast  as  accumulated, 
according  to  the  wishes  and  enthusiasm  of  the  university  regents.  It 
provides  no  legislative  restraint  upon  expenditures  either  for  main- 
tenance or  improvements,  and  makes  no  provision  for  the  future. 

Repeating  what  has  already  been  said,  the  Commission  urges 
that  permanent  inviolable  funds  be  established  not  only  for  the  uni- 
versity, but  for  the  agricultural  and  mechanical  college  and  the 
school  of  mines  which  are  integral  parts  of  the  university,  and  that 

to  such  extent  the  provisions  of  Paragraph  4501-4505  be  repealed, 
r 

COUNTY    BOND    FUND. 

For  all  other  purposes  for  which  grants  to  the  State  were  made 
and  confirmed  by  the  Enabling  Act,  with  a  single  exception,  the  Com- 
mission likewise  recommends  the  establishment  of  permanent  in- 
violable funds,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  proposed.  The  exception 
is  the  million-acre  gfant  for  the  payment  of  the  bonds  and  accrued 
interest  thereon  issued  by  Maricopa,  Pima,  Yavapai  and  Coconino 
counties,  validated  by  Congress  and  funded  into  Territorial  bonds. 
These  bonds,  having  yet  fourteen  years  to  run,  represent  a  burden 
that  can  be  discharged  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  sale  of  the  lands 
granted  for  that  purpose.  The  principal  of  the  proceeds  of  such  sales 
should  be  employed,  therefore,  first  in  discharging  the  periodical 


148  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

interest  payments  on  the  debt,  and  second,  in  the  creation  of  a  sink- 
ing: fund  which  with  the  accumulating',  earnings  thereof  will  be  suf- 
ficient to  retire  the  bonds  when  due. 

This  plan,  however,  should  not  be  suffered  to  destroy,  weaken 
or  alter  the  State's  general  policy  of  land  administration,  which,  like 
a  piece  of  machinery,  will  be  no  stronger  than  its  weakest  part.  The 
same  policy  of  classification  and  development  which,  with  respect 
to  the  lands  granted  for  school  and  other  purposes,  may  be  relied 
upon  to  work  to  the  State's  greatest  good,  should  be  applied  without 
deviation  to  the  immense  grant — almost  equal  to  all  other  institutional 
grants  combined — for  the  payment  of  county  bonds.  In  other  words, 
this  body  of  land  should  not  be  sold  indiscriminately,  without  prep- 
aration or  selection,  merely  on  the  theory  that  it  must  be  sold 
quickly.  That  would  mean  the  adoption  by  Arizona  of  the  most 
glaring  error — if  indeed  it  might  not  be  better  denominated  an  evil — 
into  which  many  other  public  land  States,  to  their  great  regret,  have 
heretofore  fallen.  The  land  should  be  sold  gradually,  as  it  is  sus- 
ceptible of  development — first,  and  immediately,  that  upon  which 
homes  can  be  at  once  established  and  successfully  maintained  and 
as  the  State's  policy  of  progressive  development  permits,  other 
bodies,  fit  for  the  best  efforts  of  the  husbandman,  should  be  disr 
posed  of. 

DISPOSITION    OF    MONEYS. 

That  the  moneys  which  may  be  deposited  in  the  several  perma- 
nent inviolable  funds  shall  be  carefully  administered  and  skilfully 
disposed  is  no  less  important  than  the  establishment  of  the  funds 
themselves.     Without  the  latter,  to  be  sure,  the  funds  would  fail,  >, 
partially  at  least,  of  their  purpose. 

The  Enabling  Act  and  Constitution  provide,  with  reference  fo 
the  trust  moneys  resulting  from  the  administration  of  the  lands 
granted  by  Congress,  that  "the  State  Treasurer  shall  keep  all  such 
moneys  invested  in  safe,  interest-bearing  securities,  which  securities 
shall  be  approved  by  the  Governor  and  Secretary  of  State     *     *  .*' 

There  remains  to  determine  what  securities  shall  be  classed  as 
*'safe",  and  whether  or  not  other  approval  than  that  of  the  Gov- 
ernor and  Secretary  of  State  shall  be  required. 

The  Commission  recommends  that  with  the  approval  of  the 
Governor,  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  State  Land  Department, 
the  State  Treasurer  may  invest  the  trust  moneys  of  the  several 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  149 

permanent  inviolable  funds  in  State,  county,  municipal  and  school 
district  bonds;  in  the  bonds  and  preferred,  dividend-guaranteed 
stock  of  irrio-ation  enterprises  approved  by  the  State  Land  Depart- 
ment, and  in  connection  with  which  the  State  owns  not  less  than 
tw-enty-five  per  cent  of  the  land  being  or  to  be  reclaimed,  such 
investment  not  to  exceed  sixty  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  sold 
of  any  such  issues  of  bonds  or  stock;  and  in  first  mo"tg.u.ocs  on 
improved  farm  lands,  such  loans  not  to  exceed  fifty  ]M^r  cent  ot* 
the  assessed  value  of  the  hind,  and  in  no  cmsi-  mo -t-  I'mn  ?|^5,000. 
Not  less  than  four  per  cent  interest  net  should  be  required  in  the 
case  of  State,  county,  municipal  and  school  district  bonds,  and  not 
less  than  five  per  cent  for  all  other  investments. 

Particular  attention  is  directed  to  the  recommendation  re- 
lating to  loans  on  improved  farm  lands.  Several  States  have  adopt- 
ed this  mode  of  investing  trust  funds,  and  have  found  it  exceedingly 
satisfactory,  as  it  serves  the  double  purpose  of  a  safe,  lucrative 
field  for  investment,  and  of  encouraging  agricultural  development 
and  agricultural  success.  With  the  exercise  of  proper  care  there 
need  be  no  losses  whatever. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  the  recommendation  resi)ecting  the 
investment  of  trust  funds  in  a  limited  amount  of  the  bonds  or  pre- 
ferred, dividend-guaranteed  stock  of  irrigation  enterprises  under 
which  not  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  land  is  owned  by 
the  State.  Such  a  provision  wall  afford  a  much  needed  flexibility 
to  the  State's  policy  of  land  development  prior  to  sale,  and  render 
possible  a  progress  not  otherwise  likely  to  occur.  As  an  ample 
safeguard  against  loss  conditions  should  be  imposed  re(iuiring,  in 
all  such  cases.  State  investigation  and  approval  of  plans,  super- 
vision of  construction,  and  the  execution  of  contracts  covering 
operation  methods  and  charges,  along  lines  similar  to  the  provisions 
contained  in  Arizona's  acceptance  of  the  Carey  Act. 

CAREY  ACT. 

By  the  provisions  of  Chapter  96.  Regular  Session.  l>aws  1912, 
amended  by  Chapter  8,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913.  Arizona  ac- 
cepted the  provisions  of  the  federal  Acts  relating  to  the  reclamation 
of  desert  lands  (28  IT.  S.  Stats..  422,  and  amendments),  commonly 
known  as  the  Carey  Land  Acts. 

The  essential  provisions  of  the  federal  Carey  Land  Acts,  in  brief, 
are  that  the  United  States  obligates  itself  to  set  aside,  upon  proper 


150  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

application  from  any  of  the  States  containing  desert  lands,  one 
million  acres  thereof,  which  is  to  be  donated,  granted  and  patented 
to  such  State,  or  its  assigns,  free  of  cost,  upon  condition  that  the 
land  shall  be  irrigated,  reclaimed  and  occupied,  not  less  than  twenty 
acres  of  each  160  to  be  cultivated  by  actual  settlers. 

By  the  Arizona  Act  of  acceptance  provision  is  made  that  the  State 
shall  sell  the  land  to  actual  settlers,  in  tracts  not  greater  than  160 
acres,  at  a  price  not  to  exceed  fifty  cents  per  acre,  twenty-five  cents 
to  be  paid  at  the  time  of  entry  and  twenty-five  cents  at  the  time  of 
making  final  proof,  conditioned  upon  the  fulfillment  of  all  the  rules, 
regulations  and  requirements  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  of 
the  State.  Each  application  to  enter  land  must  also  be  accompanied 
by  a  certified  copy  of  a  contract  for  a  perpetual  water  right,  made 
by  the  applicant  with  the  person  or  corporation  authorized  by  the 
State  to  furnish  water  for  the  reclamation  of  the  land. 

The  administration  of  Carey  Act  projects  is  made  a  duty  of  the 
Commission,  and  all  applications  for  the  withdrawal  of  land,  plans 
and  specifications  for  the  construction  of  reclamation  works,  con- 
tracts for  the  same  and  contracts  for  water  and  water  rights  be- 
tween the  applicant  proposing  to  reclaim  the  land  and  the  settlers 
upon  the  same,  are  subjects  under  the  Commission's  control. 

APPLICATIONS 

The  Commission  has  received  two  applications  for  the  tempora- 
ry withdrawal  of  lands  under  the  Act  of  March  15,  1910  (36  U.  S. 
Stats.,  237)  : 

Application  No.  1,  by  Eleanor  C.  Wittman,  of  Morristown,  N.  J., 
for  approximately  30,000  acres  in  township  4  north,  ranges  3  and 
4  west;  township  5  north,  ranges  3  and  4  west;  and  township  6 
north,  ranges  3  and  4  west. 

Application  No.  2,  by  S.  H.  Woodruff,  of  Los  Angeles,  Califor- 
nia, for  approximately  20,000  acres  in  tovrn ships  6  and  7  south, 
ranges  12  and  13  west. 

The  first  application  was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  land 
which  the  applicant  wished  withdrawn  was  unsurveyed,  and  had 
been  withdrawn  for  survey  and  selection  by  the  State  in  satisfaction 
of  its  institutional  grants. 

The  second  application  was,  after  preliminary  investigation, 
approved,  and  the  land  embraced  within  it  temporarily  withdrawn. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  151 

An  engineering  examination,  to  determine  the  feasibility  of  the  pro- 
posed project,  is  now  being  made.  If  such  examination  demon- 
strates, to  the  Commission,  the  practicability  of  the  project,  and  a 
satisfactory  contract  for  the  reclamation  of  the  land  under  it  can  be 
arranged,  application  will  be  made  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
for  the  segregation  of  the  land. 

MERITS  OF   THE   CAREY   ACT. 

On  the  whole,  the  results  of  the  operation  of  the  so-called  Carey 
Acts,  in  the  States  which  have  accepted  the  provisions  thereof,  have 
not  been  entirely  satisfactory.  This  is  believed  to  have  been  largely 
due  to  careless  or  indifferent  State  supervision,  resulting  in  the 
approval  of  unfeasible  projects  or  in  excessive  costs  for  the  construc- 
tion of  reclamation  works  and  consequent  burdens  upon  the  settlers 
which  the  value  of  the  land  reclaimed  failed  to  justify.  The  law 
has  also  been  abused  by  speculators,  who  through  its  provisions  have 
been  enabled  to  acquire  large  tracts  of  land  without  residence  or  cul- 
tivation and  thus  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  legislation,  which,  in  ad- 
dition to  effecting  the  reclamation  of  the  arid  lands,  was  designed 
to  afford  a  practical  opportunity  for  the  acquirement  of  homes  by 
actual  settlers.  An  attempt  to  correct  existing  defects  in  the  federal 
law.  and  to  surround  it  with  safeguards  which  will  insure  develop- 
ment and  settlement,  is  the  purpose  of  a  bill  introduced  in  the  United 
States  House  of  Representatives,  March  31,  1914,  by  Hon.  Carl  Hay- 
den  of  Arizona.  * 

Inasmuch  as  practically  all  of  the  lands  in  Arizona  susceptible 
of  reclamation  have  been  selected  or  withdrawn  for  selecti.jn  by  the 
Commission,  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  institutional  grants 
and  indemnity  rights  of  the  State,  it  is  not  likely  that  a  great  many 
Carey  Act  projects  will  be  promoted  in  Arizona. 

To  the  extent,  however,  that  opportunity  may  be  found  for  their 
proper  promotion,  the  acceptance  of  the  provisions  of  the  federal 
law  should  prove,  under  competent  State  supervision,  beneficial. 

PROPOSED   SANTA   FE   PACIFIC   EXCHANGE. 

In  the  performance  of  its  duties  as  the  representative  of  the 
State  government  in  matters  affecting  the  lands  of  the  State,  the 
Commission,  on  September  8,  1913,  formally  protested  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  against  approval  of  the  pending  exchange  of 


iry2  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

some  426,581.50  acres  of  land  owned  by  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Rail- 
road Company,  in  the  Moqui  and  Navajo  Indian  reservations,  for 
lands  selected  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  and  of  21,095.77  acres  own- 
ed by  the  New  Mexico  &  Arizona  Land  Company,  in  the  Navajo  In- 
dian reservation,  for  a  like  acreage  of  land  near  the  town  of  Wins- 
low,  within  the  area  withdrawn  for  the  Little  Colorado  River  pro- 
ject. 

WHY    THE    COMMISSION    PROTESTED. 

Following  its  creation  in  1912  the  Commission  was  advised,  by 
many  citizens  of  the  State,  that  an  attempt  was  being  made — and  to 
some  extent  had  already  succeeded — to  exchange  the  worthless  lands 
of  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  within  the  Moqui  and 
Navajo  Indian  reservations,  for  lands  of  much  greater  value  widely 
scattered  over  the  State. 

So  numerous  and  so  insistent  became  the  charges  that  this  so- 
called  scrip  was  being  employed  in  utter  disregard  of  the  require- 
ment that  the  lands  selected  should  be  equal  in  value  with  those 
represented  by  the  scrip,  that  the  matter  became  a  constant  subject 
of  discussion  by  the  First  State  Legislature.  A  memorial  calling  up- 
on the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  suspend  all  pending  lieu  selections 
in  Arizona  was  passed  by  the  Senate  and  recommended  for  passage 
by  the  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  but  owing,  as  the  Com- 
mission was  informed  ajid  believes,  to  an  immaterial  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  its  proper  wording,  was  not  finally  acted  upon  by  that 
body.  There  appeared  to  be,  however,  practically  unanimous  op- 
position to  the  proposed  exchange,  and  many  of  the  members  per- 
sonally urged  the  Commission  to  exert  itself  to  prevent  what  they 
conceived  to  be  a  great  fraud.  The  Commission  took  the  position 
that  it  would  do  so,  in  the  event  that  an  investigation  should  dis- 
close the  justice  and  propriety  of  such  a  course. 

To  that  end,  an  examination  was  made,  in  conjunction  with 
other  duties,  both  of  the  lands  relinquished  and  the  lands  included 
within  lieu  selection  lists,  and  the  conviction  was  reached  by  the 
Commission  that  it  would  fail  in  its  duty  as  an  official  body  having 
in  charge  the  State 's  interests,  as  they  are  affected  by  the  disposition 
of  the  public  lands,  if  representations  were  not  made  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  looking  to  the  prevention  of  the  pending  exchanges. 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  153 

HISTORY   OF  THE   SCHEME. 

The  following  outline  of  the  attempt  being  made  to  exchange  a 
large  body  of  worthless  land  in  the  Painted  Desert  for  exceedingly- 
valuable  lands  throughout  the  State  is  quoted  from  a  letter  of  the 
Commission,  dated  July  14,  1914,  to  the  State  Taxpayers'  Associa- 
tion of  Arizona,  in  response  to  a  request  for  information  regarding 
the  Commission's  expenditures  in  connection  with  its  protest: 

"The  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad  Company  owns  the  odd-num- 
bered sections  of  land  forty  miles  on  either  side  of  the  Atchison, 
Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  railroad  in  Arizona,  acquired  under  the  Atlantic 
&  Pacific  railroad  land  grant  Act  of  1866.  North  of  the  railroad,  in 
the  counties  of  Apache,  Navajo  and  Coconino,  this  vast  grant  ex- 
tends into  the  Moqui  and  Navajo  country.  The  land  is  virtually 
worthless,  so  far  as  practical  use  is  concerned,  but  that  it  con- 
tained possibilities  for  the  railroad-owner  events  have  shown. 

"Into  the  Indian  Department  Appropriations  Act  of  1904  there 
crept  an  obscure  provision,  the  conception,  source  and  purpose  of 
which  are  not  now  of  so  much  importance  as  its  effect,  'that  any 
private  land  over  which  an  Indian  reservation  has  been  extended, 
by  Executive  Order,  may  be  exchanged  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  at  the  expense  of  the  owner  thereof, 
and  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  for  vacant,  non-mineral,  non-timbered, 
surveyed  public  lands  of  equal  area  and  value  and  situated  in  the 
same  State  or  Territory.' 

"From  there  on  the  way  was  clear.  The  'private  lands'  were 
the  alternate  sections  of  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad  Company 
in  the  Moqui,  Navajo  and  Zuni  reservations  in  Arizona  and  New 
Mexico — twin  victims,  through  many  a  dark  and  dreary  day  of 
territorialism,  of  more  or  less  legalized  plunder.  Worthless  as 
were  these  'private  lands,'  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  rail- 
road company's  highly  organized  manipulators  feared,  or  in  fact 
had  reason  to  fear,  the  discretionary  and  regulative  powers  vested 
in  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  or  even  viewed  with  alarm  the 
requirement  that  the  exchanges  made  possible  by  this  law  should 
be  for  lands  of  'equal  value.' 

"On  the  heels  of  the  license  secured,  Indian  missionaries  and 
Indian  agents  began  to  discover  how  essential  it  was,  'for  admin- 
istrative purposes,'  'to  prevent  conflicts  with  whites,'  'because  more 
room  was  needed  for  the  Indian  herds,'  and  for  other  imaginary 
reasons,  that  the  railroad  company's  title  to  lands  in  the  reserva- 
tions named  should  be  eliminated.  It  would  be  interesting,  even 
at  this  late  date,  if  a  sight  might  be  had  of  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific 
Railroad  Company's  'yellow  dog'  accounts  of  that  period,  wherein 
should  appear  evidences  of  favors  to  missionaries  and  agents. 

"Exchanges  wer«  authorized,  according  to  design  and  program, 
and  the  State  Land  Commission  feels  perfectly  secure  in  asserting 
that  without  a  single  exception,  in  either  New  Mexico  or  Arizona, 
they  were  outrageous,  shameful  perversions  of  a  pernicious  law, 
the  true  origin  of  which  may  only  be  surmised,  by  means  of  which 
the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad  Company  has  profited  to  the  extent 


154  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

of  millions  of  dollars,  and  every  principle  of  morality,  fairness  and 
equity  to  the  Government  and  to  the  people  has  been  sacrificed  on 
the  altar  of  corporate  rapacity  and  corporate  influence. 

"Under  the  Moqui  exchange — the  first  one  with  which  the  present 
controversy  has  to  do — 345,000  acres  of  alternate  railroad  sections 
in  the  Moqui  reservation  were  to  be  exchanged  for  a  like  area  of 
'equal  value'  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  the  first  selections  being 
made  in  1910.  The  exchange  was  effected  by  means  of  so-called 
scrip,  which  the  company  sold,  generally  through  brokers,  to  who- 
ever would  buy,  most  of  it  going  to  a  very  few,  in  very  large  blocks. 

"Here  is  the  point  at  which  the  enormity  of  the  fraud  can  best 
be  made  clear.  This  Moqui  land — though  some  of  it  is  of  a  better 
grade  than  the  utterly  worthless  territory  of  the  later  so-called 
Navajo  exchange — is  so  insignificant  in  value  that  in  no  legitimate 
way,  even  though  it  were  not  a  part  of  an  Indian  reservation,  could 
the  railroad  company  ever  have  realized  out  of  it  an  appreciable 
sum.  Regardless  of  this,  the  company  placed  its  so-called  scrip, 
supposed  to  be  exchangeable  for  land  only  of  'equal  value,'  or 
valuelessness,  on  the  market  at  two  dollars  and  a  half  an  acre,  the 
brokers  through  whom  it  was  retailed  in  turn  charging  three  dol- 
lars an  acre  and  more.  An  altogether  liberal  valuation  of  the  land 
would  be  twenty-five  cents  an  acre,  yet  the  scrip  which  stood  for 
it,  costing  the  buyer  from  two  fifty  up,  was  applied  to  carefully 
selected  land — in  fact,  the  best  unappropriated  land  in  the  State — 
certain  to  become  very  valuable,  in  bodies  as  great  as  70,000  acres, 
in  no  instance  worth  less  than  the  price  paid  for  the  scrip  and  in 
many  cases  easily  worth  twenty-five  dollars  an  acre.  If  all  the 
selections  made  had  been  approved  the  company's  profits  out  of 
this  particular  enterprise  would  have  approximated  nine  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  that  of  the  speculators  who  joined  in  the  scheme 
hardly  to  be  estimated,  the  United  States  would  have  been  robbed 
of  345,000  acres  cf  the  choicest  land  in  Arizona,  and  the  State's 
development  retarded  in  almost  the  entire  proportion  that  the  land 
in  question  bears  to  the  total  amount  of  territory,  undeveloped  but 
susceptible  of  development,  in  the  State.  The  fraud  did  succeed 
to  the  extent  of  patents  issuing,  under  a  regime  to  which  the  law's 
requirement  of  'equal  value'  presented  no  insurmountable  obstacle, 
for  245,000  acres,  and  by  that  means  the  railroad  company  received 
over  six  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  a  hopeless,  irreclaimable 
desert  not  worth,  at  the  maximum  and  under  the  most  favorable 
conditions,  a  tenth  of  that  sum.  About  100,000  acres  of  the  selec- 
tions involved  in  this  exchange  are  pending,  and  unless  official 
sanction  should  be  given  to  theft,  on  the  ground  that  part  of  the 
swag  has  already  been  removed,  will  continue  to  pend  until  they 
die  the  death  they  deserve. 

"But  this  Moqui  scandal,  bad  as  it  is,  is  eclipsed  by  the  Santa 
Fe  Pacific  Company's  latest  effort  in  frenzied  land  finance — the 
so-called  Navajo  exchange.  It  followed  the  exhaustion  of  the  Moqui 
scrip,  and  has  few,  if  any.  parallels  in  the  annals  of  public  land 
peculations. 

"By  Executive  Order  of  January  8,  1900,  a  tract  of  land  west 
of  and  adjacent  to  the  Navajo  Indian  reservation  was  'withdrawn 
from  sale  and  settlement  until  further  ordered.'  By  Executive 
Order  of  November  14,  1901,  a  similar  tract,  south  of  that  above 
mentioned  and  also  connecting  with  the  Navajo  reservation,  was 
'withdrawn  from  sale  and  settlement  until  such  time  as  the  Indians 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  155 


thereon  (there  were  not  to  exceed  fifty  men,  women  and  children 
within  an  area  of  one  hundred  miles  square)  shall  have  been  set- 
tled permanently  under  the  provisions  of  the  homestead  laws  or  the 
general  allotment  act.' 

"In  these  two  tracts  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Company  owned 
827,402  acres  of  the  most  incomprehensibly  worthless,  inconceiv- 
ably desolate,  unbelievably  God-forsaken  scenery  that  eye  ever 
viewed  or  the  ingenuity  of  man  ever  thought  of  realizing  upon.  And 
yet  it  did  not  stall  the  enterprising  Santa  Fe  land  department.  As 
will  have  been  noted,  the  land  did  not  come  within  the  purview 
of  the  law  of  1904  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  ex- 
change 'private  land  over  which  an  Indian  reservation  had  been 
extended  by  Executive  Order,'  for  the  Executive  Orders  withdraw- 
ing it  from  sale  and  settlement  made  no  reference  whatever  to  an 
Indian  reservation;  and  the  history  of  the  withdrawals  proves  con- 
clusively that  there  had  never  been  the  slightest  thought  of  ex- 
tending an  Indian  reservation  over  it.  But  as  has  been  explained, 
it  adjoined  the  Navajo  reservation,  and  when  the  General  Land 
Office  issued  a  map  of  Arizona  on  which,  without  order,  authority 
or  warning,  it  miraculously  appeared  as  a  portion  of  the  Navajo 
reservation,  what  was  evidently  considered  the  only  obstacle  to 
the  company's  enterprise  had  been  hurdled.  There  followed,  after 
the  same  old  preliminary  representations  and  recommendations  by 
Indian  missionaries  and  Indian  agents,  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior's authorization  of  an  exchange,  confessedly  hurried  through 
because  the  best  lands  in  Arizona  were  being  rapidly  taken  by 
homesteaders   and   desert   entrymen. 

"Thus  appeared  on  the  market  the  flood  of  Navajo  scrip  with 
which  the  State  has  since  been  scourged,  based  on  land  for  which 
even  the  railroad-made  law  did  not  authorize  an  exchange,  and  the 
hopeless  worthlessness  of  which  may  be  sensed  from  the  fact  that 
over  the  most  of  its  vast  area  no  living  thing — not  even  a  rabbit,  a 
lizard  or  snake — may  be  found  or  could  subsist. 

"It  would  not  be  unnatural  to  suppose  that  even  if  the  certain 
illegality  of  any  exchange  at  all  did  not  prevent  the  Navajo  steal,  the 
'equal  value'  clause  would;  but  evidently  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Com- 
pany considers  all  things  possible.  The  land  proposed  for  'exchange' 
is  a  part  of  the  famous  but  little-known  Painted  Desert,  a  wild, 
barren,  desolate  waste  of  scenery  straight,  without  record  of 
aphievement,  excuse  for  existence  or  hope  for  the  future.  For  miles 
it  stretches  without  sign,  thought  or  possibility  of  vegetation,  and 
where  its  vari-hued  sterile  clay  is  covered  with  undulating,  shifting 
ridges  of  sand  it  sustains  no  more  than  a  pitiful  growth  of  the 
most  alkali-resistant  plants.  On  fifteen  hundred  thousand  acres, 
of  which  this  327,000-acre  tract  is  a  part,  there  is  not  enough  avail- 
able water  for  a  decent  bunch  of  cattle,  and  the  principal  stream 
— a  most  undignified  use  to  make  of  the  word — is  so  charged  with 
alkali  that  a  shingle  dipped  into  it  becomes  at  once  briny  white. 
There  is  no  water  for  the  soil  and  no  soil  to  water.  Such  sand- 
grass  as  maintains  a  precarious  existence  is  repulsed  by  stock,  for 
it  is  repugnant  to  the  taste  and  without  value  as  food.  Better 
forage  will  not  grow  in  the  volcanic  clay  and  alkali-laden  sand. 
If  desirable  grass  were  there  it  would  not  be  available  for  more 
than  a  few  head  of  stock,  for  water  is  too  'few  and  far  between.' 
A  careful  examination  of  this  far-reaching  waste  revealed  a  lone 
brindle  bull,  a  wan  and  well-nigh  spectral  wanderer.  The  Navajoes 
do  not  use  the  land,  because  they  can't;   they  do  not  need  it,  for 


156  REPORT   OF  THE   STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

they  have  twelve  million  acres  of  better.     Nobody  will  ever  use  it, 
or  even  try. 

"This  is  the  basis  of  the  proposed  'Navajo  exchange.'  The 
history,  to  date,  is  made  complete  by  the  statement  that  the 
327,000  acres  of  scrip  has  been  peddled,  at  the  price  heretofore 
named  for  Moqui,  and  now  represents  as  many  acres  of  selections 
of  the  choicest  unappropriated  land  in  Arizona.  The  bulk  of  it  is 
in  the  hands  of  speculators  who  will  let  it  lie  until  time  and  the 
efforts  and  enterprise  of  others  make  it  worth  while  to  sell  at  a 
fancy  price.  Much  of  it  has  been  employed  in  large  blocks  by  cat- 
tlemen. Some  of  it  was  used  by  desert  and  homestead  entrymen 
who,  ignorant  of  the  law  and  the  worthless  character  of  the  scrip, 
were  induced  to,  or  being  tired,  chose  to  relinquish  their  filingc 
and  procure  patent  by  a  method  which  involved  no  further  effort 
of  residence,  cultivation  or  improvement.  A  few  of  this  last-named 
class  are  actual  settlers,  and  are  entitled  to  such  protection  as 
the  law  allows  or  can  be  provided.  Though  inconsiderable  in  num- 
ber, and  still  less  considerable  in  the  amount  of  land  involved  in 
their  selections,  these  well-meaning  men  are  being  used,  in  the 
desperate  straits  to  which  the  Navajo  scheme  has  come,  to  make 
a  'poor  settler'  fight  for  a  cause  which  on  its  merits  should  have 
no  standing  outside  of  the  criminal  courts. 

"  'Poor  settler,'  indeed.  An  instance  of  the  'poor  settler'  whose 
predicament  is  causing  such  unusual  concern  in  quarters  where 
the  humble  and  lowly  tiller  of  the  soil  has  not  heretofore  been 
an  object  of  solicitude,  is  found  in  the  effort  of  a  well  known  cattle 
company  to  gain  absolute  and  indisputable  control  of  300,000  acres 
of  excellent  range  by  plastering  11,000  acres  of  Navajo  scrip  on 
the  only  groimd  in  that  great  area  wheT*e  water  exists  or  car  be 
developed.  There  are  other  instances  of  the  sort,  the  history  of 
which  should  be  written  before  the  so-called  'Navajo  exchange'  is 
brought  to  a  successful  conclusion. 

"The  really  deserving  settler  has  ever  had,  has  now  and  will 
have,  the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  State  Land  Commission. 
Some  of  them  have  been  deceived  into  thinking  otherwise,  but  that 
is  neither  here  nor  there.  Time  will  tell.  Their  problem  is  not 
impossible  of  solution — but  it  might  well  be  feared  that  it  would 
be  if  it  rested  upon  the  consummation  of  the  Moqui  and  Navajo 
fraud,    or  the   kindly   interest   of  those   chiefly   concerned   therein. 

"This,  for  the  present,  will  be  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
State  Land  Commission's  activities  in  a  direction  apparently  dis- 
pleasing to  some.  If  the  money  expended — not  a  great  amount  at 
the  very  worst — to  prevent  a  half-million  acre  'land  grab'  and  the 
presentation  of  a  few  millions  to  the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad 
Company  is  begrudged  by  some  of  the  'large  taxpayers'  of  the  State 
it  ought  not  to  be  hard  to  raise  the  sum  among  taxpayers  who 
have  no  personal  interest  in  the  success  of  the  fraud  and  return 
it  to  the  Treasury.  If  the  Commission's  protest  should  prove  suc- 
cessful it  will  be  worth  to  the  great  army  of  not  so  large  tax- 
payers and  home-seekers  and  to  the  State  in  general  five  thousand 
times  its  cost  in  dollars  and  cents,  and  a  million  times  in  the  prec- 
edent established  and  in  the  vindication  of  public  honesty,  decency 
and  justice. 

"The  State  Land  Commission  conceives  that  it  were  better  to 

'    make  the  effort  now,  before  its  consummation,  to  prevent  a  flagrant, 

egregious  and  indefensible  fraud,  rather  than  read,  five  years  or  ten 

years     hence,     the    history     of    another    nation-wide     public     land 

scandal." 


REPORT.  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  157 

FURTHER    PROCEEDINGS. 

To  support  the  State's  protest  against  the  pending  exchanges, 
the  chairman  of  the  Commission  appeared,  at  the  request  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior,  at  a  hearing  held  in  Washington  on  June 
9-11,  1914,  and  there  presented,  verbally  and  in  writing,  the  detail- 
ed facts  as  they  had  been  made  known  to  the  Commission  by  per- 
sonal examinations.  The  hearing  was  thorough  and  searching,  and 
was  conducted  by  Hon.  A.  A.  Jones,  First  Assistant  Secretary,  in  a 
manner  clearly  indicative  of  a  desire  to  meet  the  demands  of  justice. 

What  the  final  issue  may  be  the  Commission  cannot  predict. 
That  is  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  determine.  The  Commis- 
sion does  know  that  the  successful  conclusion  of  the  scheme  would 
amount  to  a  theft  of  millions  by  its  originator  and  chief  beneficiary, 
the  Santa  Fe  Pacific  Railroad  Company;  by  speculators  of  millions 
more,  and  the  tying,  up  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  of  hundreds  of  miles  of 
the  choicest  land  in  the  State. 

That  some  innocent,  well-meaning  persons  are  concerned  to  a 
small  extent  is  also  known.  But  their  regrettable  predicament  is 
not  hopeless.  It  is  altogether  likely  that  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior can  find  a  means,  in  the  event  of  the  rejection  of  the  pending 
lieu  selections,  of  amply  protecting  such  of  the  desert  and  home- 
stead entrymen  who  were  induced  to  relinquish  their  filings  and 
place  the  so-called  scrip  upon  their  lands,  as  wish  such  protection. 
They  will  be  found  to  be  exceedingly  few  in  number. 

Failing  the  adoption  of  an  adequate  plan  by  the  Secretary,  for 
the  relief  of  such  innocent  purchasers  of  scrip,  whether  prior  desert 
and  homestead  entrymen  or  not,  as  may  be  deserving  of  special  con- 
sideration, the  Commission  believes  it  to  be  within  the  Constitutional 
limitations  respecting  disposal  of  institutional  grant  lands,  for  the 
State  to  perfect  means  to  that  end,  and  heartily  recommends  that 
any  necessary  authority  for  the  purpose  be  given  to  the  State  Land 
Department. 

TAKING  SCHOOL  OR  UNIVEPx^ITY  LANDS 
FOR  USE  OF  STATE; 

Chapter  2,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913,  reserves  to  the  State 
the  right,  whenever  any  school  or  university  land  is  desired  for  the 


158  REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

uses  of  any  department  of  the  State  government  or  of  a  State  insti- 
tution, to  take  over  the  same,  together  with  the  improvements 
thereon,  by  compensating  the  owner  of  the  improvements  therefor, 
and  the  Commission  is  authorized,  upon  the  reimbursement  of  the 
owner  for  such  improvements,  in  the  manner  provided,  to  issue  a 
permit  to  occupy  the  land  as  other  permits  are  issued,  upon  the  pay- 
ment of  such  rental  as  the  Commission  may  fix. 

This  law  has  been  invoked  in  one  instance.  The  Tempe  Normal 
school  has  made  formal  application  to  take  over  Section  16,  town- 
ship 1  north,  range  4  east,  Gila  and  Salt  River  base  and  meridian, 
for  the  uses  of  that  institution,  and  to  reimburse  the  owners  for  the 
improvements  thereon. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  explain  that  this  is  the  land  commonly 
known  as  "the  Tempe  Normal  School  section,"  adjacent  to  the  town 
of  Tempe,  which  an  attempt  was  made  by  Territorial  statute  to 
transfer  to  the  Tempe  Normal  School,  and  which  Chapter  9,  Title  43, 
Revised  Statutes  1913,  assumed  to  give  into  the  possession  of  the 
Normal  School  Board,  to  be  administered  by  that  body  for  the 
uses  and  benefit  of  the  institution.  The  lessees  who  held  possession 
of  the  land,  under  Territorial  lease,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
Territorial  statute  transferring  the  section  to  the  Normal  School, 
and  who  have  ever  since  maintained  possession,  declined  to  recog- 
nize the  authority  of  the  Normal  School  Board,  and  resisted  the  at- 
tempt, based  upon  the  statutes  enacted  for  that  purpose  by  the 
First  Legislature  (Chapter  9,  Title  43,  Revised  Statute  1913),  to  eject 
them.  An  action  for  ejection  was  brought  by  the  Attorney-General 
and  the  contention  of  the  lessees  upheld  by  the  court.  The  Commis- 
sion thereupon  granted  a  permit  to  the  lessees,  for  the  continued 
occupancy  of  the  land,  upon  payment  of  all  back  rentals. 

Pursuant  to  the  application  of  the  Normal  School  Board  to  take 
over  the  land  and  improvements,  under  the  provisions  of  the  general 
law  enacted  for  that  purpose,  the  Commission  has  negotiated  with 
the  lessees  in  an  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  the  value  of  their 
improvements,  but  is  unable  to  do  so.  and  the  matter  is  now  proceed- 
ing to  adjudication  as  further  provided  by  law. 

COLORADO  RIVER  INDIAN  RESERVATION. 

Very  great  disappointment  is  felt,  not  only  by  the  people  of 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  159 

the  town  and  vicinity  of  Parker,  who  are  directly  and  immediately 
interested,  but  as  well  by  the  people  of  the  entire  State,  that  the 
long  anticipated  opening  of  and  sale  of  the  lands  within  the  Colorado 
River  Indian  reservation,  has  not  materialized.  Until  a  year  a^o 
it  was  anticipated  that  the  opening  would  be  effected  through  the 
medium  of  a  bill  introduced  in  Congress,  which  provided  for  the 
sale  and  reclamation  of  the  land  under  the  terms  of  the  Carey  Act, 
so  amended  as  to  fit  the  peculiar  conditions  surrounding  Indian  lands 
for  which  the  Indians  should  be  reimbursed.  When  prospects  were 
bright  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  unexpected  opposition  from  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  destroyed  its  chances  of  success.  This 
opposition  was  based  upon  a  lack  of  confidence  in  the  efficiency 
of  the  Carey  Act  as  a  means  of  reclamation,  and  the  unwillingness 
of  the  federal  government  either  to  share  responsibility  for  the 
proposed  reclamation  project  without  authority  over  the  same  or 
to  accept  the  authority  without  which  such  responsibility  would 
not  be  justified. 

The  Colorado  River  Indian  reservation  contains  approximately 
150,000  acres  of  the  choicest  river  valley  land,  which  is  susceptible 
of  irrigation  either  by  means  of  diversion  from  the  Colorado  river 
or  by  pumping  from  wells  or  from  the  river.  Development  of  this 
land,  which  is  so  definite  and  so  simple,  would  mean  much  to  the 
State,  and  it  is  thought  that  a  desire  for  the  accomplishment  of  that 
purpose  should  be  unanimous.  Since  the  joining  of  the  propositions 
of  opening  the  reservation  and  of  reclaiming  the  land  appear  to 
present  obstacles  at  present  insurmountable,  an  effort  should  be 
made  to  induce  the  opening  without  the  reclamation.  Reclamation, 
by  one  or  the  other  of  the  feasible  methods  heretofore  indicated, 
will  follow  if  a  means  can  be  found  by  which  home-builders  may 
secure  title  to  the  land. 

This  is  a  subject  upon  which  the  Commission  has  and  will 
exert  itself,  through  proper  representations  and  the  presentation 
of  accurate  data,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  It  is  a  proper 
subject  for  a  legislative  memorial  to  that  official  and  to  Congress. 

GRANT  FOR  PAYMENT  OF  COUNTY  BONDS. 

Chapter  4,  Title  43.  Revised  Statutes  1913,  instructed  the  Com- 
mission  to  select,  "immediately  after  this  Act  becomes  effective," 


1^       REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

the  one  million  acres  of  land  granted  to  the  State  for  the  payment 
of  the  bonds  and  accrued  interest  thereon  issued  by  Maricopa,  Pima, 
Yavapai  and  Coconino  counties,  and  authorized  the  Commission,  be- 
ginning "within  six  months  after  the  State  secures  title  to  said 
lands,"  to  sell  or  otherwise  dispose  of  the  same. 

The  Act  has  been  complied  with  to  the  extent  of  the  Commis- 
sion's ability,  and  to  the  extent  that  such  compliance  would  not  pre- 
vent the  carrying  out  of  other  requirements  of  the  law,  equally  bind- 
ing, with  respect  to  the  selection  of  lands  in  satisfaction  of  the  in- 
stitutional grants  to  the  State. 

As  set  forth  in  Table  I,  page  32,  there  have  been  selected  in 
satisfaction  of  the  grant  for  the  payment  of  the  bonds  and  accrued 
interest  thereon  issued  by  Maricopa,  Pima,  Yavapai  and  Coconino 
counties,  70,252.68  acres.  It  has  been  found  necessary,  as  is  more 
fully  set  forth  under  the  general  report  relating  to  "Institutional 
l^ands,"  to  defer  further  selections  pending  the  approval  of  surveys 
of  lands  desirable  for  selection.  The  approval  of  the  General  Land 
Office  has  not  been  secured  for  any  of  the  selections  made  for  this 
grant,  and  it  follows  that  the  authorization  for  the  sale  of  the  lands 
could  not  be  carried  into  effect. 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY   OVER   STATE  LANDS. 

The  Commission  has  received  a  number  of  applications  for 
rights-of-way  on,  across  and  over  school  and  other  State  lands  for 
reservoirs,  canals,  transmission  lines,  sewer  systems,  railroad 
grounds,  etc.,  but  owing  to  the  ambiguity  and  doubtful  requirements 
of  the  present  law  has  taken  final  action  upon  none  of  them. 

Paragraph  4561,  Chapter  1,  Title  43,  Revised  Statutes  1913,  con- 
fers upon  the  Commission  "the  right  to  grant  rights-of-way  for  rail- 
roads, canals,  ditches  and  any  other  purposes  they  may  deem  nec- 
essary, and  sites  for  reservoirs,  dams,  and  power  or  irrigating  plants, 
upon  such  terms  and  conditions  as  they  may  deem  proper,  and  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  granting  and  maintenance 
of  such  rights-of-way  and  sites." 

The  authority  thus  conferred  would  appear  to  be  sufficiently 
broad  to  permit  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  the  Commission's  dis- 
cretion, but  it  seems  that  it  may  be  limited  by  a  provision  which  ap- 
pears in  identical  terms  in  the  Constitution  and  the  Enabling  Act. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  igj 

This  provision,  as  taken  from  Section  2,  Article  X  of  the  State 
(Jonstitntion,  is  as  follows:  "Disposition  of  any  of  said  lands,  or  of 
any  money  or  thinor  of  value  directly  or  indirectly  derived  therefrom, 
for  any  object  other  than  that  for  which  such  particular  lands  (or 
the  lands  from  which  such  money  or  thing  of  value  shall  have  been 
derived)  were  granted  or  confirmed,  or  in  any  manner  contrary  to 
the  provisions  of  the  said  Enabling  Act,  shall  be  deemed  a  breach  of 
trust." 

With  a  view  to  removing  the  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  Commis- 
sion, the  Attorne.y-General  was  requested  to  give  his  opinion  as  to- 
whether  the  granting  of  rights-of-way  for  any  or  all  of  the  purposes 
named  would  not  amount  to  a  disposition  of  the  land  covered  by  the 
same ;  if  it  would,  whether  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  the  Commis- 
sion, in  granting  rights-of-way,  to  sell  the  land  for  the  "object  for 
which  such  particular  lands  were  granted  or  confirmed,"  and  in  do- 
ing so,  to  conform  in  all  respects  to  the  requirements  of  the  Enabling 
Act,  the  Constitution  and  the  statutes  relating  to  the  sale  or  disposi- 
tion of  State  lands. 

The  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  rendered  under  date  of 
August  31,  1914,  was  to  the  effect  that  "the  granting,  of  a  right-of- 
way  over  State  lands  amounts  to  a  disposition  of  the  lands, ' '  and  he 
deemed  it  to  be  "advisable  in  granting  a  right-of-way  to  comply  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Enabling  Act  and  the  statute  respecting  the  sale 
of  lands  covered  by  the  Enabling  Act." 

The  Commission  recommends  that  the  ambiguity  in  the  law  be 
removed,  and  the  interests  of  the  State  at  the  same  time  protected,, 
by  requiring,  that  the  State  Land  Department,  after  approving  an 
application  for  a  right-of-way,  sell  the  land  covered  by  such  appli- 
cation in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law.  This  would  necessitate  the 
offering  of  the  land  at  public  auction,  and  to  guard  against  compet- 
itive and  unjust  bidding  by  interests  possibly  opposed  to  the  objects 
for  which  the  rights-of-w^ay  might  be  desired,  the  law  should  limit 
eligible  bidders  to  those  who  had  complied  with  the  Department's 
requirements  and  regulations  respecting  applications  for  rights-of- 
way.  The  insuring,  on  the  State's  part,  of  a  proper  price,  could  be 
easily  covered  by  the  Department's  appraisal  of  the  land  prior  to 
sale,  as  required  by  the  Constitution  and  the  Enabling  Act. 


162  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

PROTECTION  OF  EQUITIES  ON  SCHOOL  LANDS 
SETTLED  PRIOR  TO  SURVEY. 

There  are  a  number  of  school  sections  in  the  State,  settled  upon 
many  years  ago,  prior  to  survey,  and  cultivated  continuously  ever 
since,  but  to  which  the  occupants  are  unable  to  secure  title,  by  rea- 
son of  the  original  squatters'  rights  having  been  slept  upon.  Legis- 
lation should  be  provided  for  the  protection  in  such  cases  of  the 
equities  of  the  settlers  by  the  survey  of  the  lands  so  affected  into 
lots  conforming  to  the  holdings  of  each  settler  and  the  sale  of  the 
lots  at  valuations  to  be  fixed  by  the  State  Land  Department. 

The  most  striking  instance  of  this  description  is  found  in  the 
case  of  section  16,  township  18  north,  range  19  east,  upon  which 
the  village  of  St.  Joseph,  Navajo  county,  is  located.  This  section, 
which  is  but  a  mile  and  a  half  from  the  station  on  the  Santa  Fe 
railroad  known  as  Joseph  City,  was  settled  upon  as  early  as  1876,. 
by  a  little  band  of  Mormon  pioneers  who  were  veritably  carving 
their  way  in  a  most  forbidding  desert  wilderness.  The  land  was  un- 
surveyed,  and  the  settlers,  who  proposed  to  make  their  home  there  if 
none  too  friendly  nature  and  decidedly  hostile  Indians  would  per- 
mit, had  no  way  of  knowing  that  it  would  when  surveyed,  be  one 
of  the  sections  reserved  for  the  schools.  The  story  of  the  early 
trials,  dangers  and  experiences  of  these  St.  Joseph  pioneers  would 
read  like  a  romance,  but  it  is  not  the  purpose  to  recount  them  here. 
Finally,  in  1880,  the  United  States  survey  was  extended  over  the 
land,  and  those  who  had  acquired  squatters'  rights  prior  thereto 
could  then  have  filed  their  homestead  entries,  but  lack  of  experience, 
an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  mode  of  procedure,  the  difficulties 
attendant  upon  travel  to  the  distant  land  office,  the  pressing  needs 
of  the  hour  at  home,  and  perhaps  to  some  extent  the  early-day  west- 
em  carelessness  as  to  land  titles,  conspired  to  work  a  long  post- 
ponement. At  last,  attempts  were  made  to  file  homestead  entries, 
but  through  a  misapprehension  of  the  rights  of  the  squatters,  on  the 
part  of  local  officials,  the  filings  were  rejected,  and  though,  had 
the  settlers  persisted,  their  rights  would  undoubtedlj^  have  been 
established,  no  appeal  was  ta Ken. 

In  the  meantime  what  was  originally  three  or  four  small  farm 
holdings  grew  into  a  settlement,  which  is  now  marked  by  division 
into  fifty-six  lots,  containing  buildings  and  improvements  of  a  per- 


REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  153 

manent  and  valuable  character.  For  temporary  protection  the  land 
covered  by  this  settlement  is  being  leased  from  the  State  by 
John  Bushman,  and  held  in  trust  for  the  occupants,  while  a  legal 
means  is  being  sought  for  their  relief.  An  attempt  is  under  way  to 
have  homestead  entries,  in  the  name  of  certain  of  the  occupants  who 
were  settlers  on  the  land  prior  to  survey,  accepted  by  the  United 
States  land  office,  but  it  is  not  believed  that  the  desired  relief  can 
be  secured  by  such  means,  owing  to  the  large  number  of  parties  and 
interests  affected,  and  the  inability  of  the  entrymen  to  make  such 
an  affidavit  as  is  required  by  the  United  States  land  laws.  A 
measure  was  enacted  by  the  First  Legislature  (Chapter  7,  Title  43, 
Revised  Statutes  1913)  designed  to  extend  the  protection  prayed  for, 
but  as -was  pointed  out  by  the  Commission  at  that  time,  it  was  in- 
effective. 

The  only  adequate  solution  of  the  St.  Joseph  and  similar  prob- 
lems lies,  as  stated,  in  legislation  authorizing  the  subdivision,  by  the 
State  Land  Department,  of  such  sections,  and  the  sale  thereof  in  the 
manner  and  under  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  Constitution  and 
the  Enabling  Act.  The  Commission  recommends  that  such  action  be 
taken. 

STATE  LAND  DEPARTMENT. 

In  concluding  this  report,  it  is  deemed  proper  to  direct  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  State  Land  Commission  was  created,  by 
the  Act  of  May  20,  1912,  ''to  hold  office  until  the  adjournment  of 
the  next  regular  session  of  the  Legislature."  The  Commission, 
as  constituted  by  the  present  law,  will  therefore  automatically  ex- 
pire with  the  close  of  the  coming  legislative  session.  There  is  no 
need,  doubtless,  to  detail  the  imperative  necessity  of  early  attention 
to  the  creation  of  a  permanent  State  Land  Department,  in  order 
that  the  multitudinous  detail  attached  to  the  State's  varied  land 
interests  may  have  constant  attention,  and  to  prevent  irretrievable 
loss. 

Regarding  the  form  the  State  Land  Department  should  take  the 
Commission  has  no  recommendations  to  make.  The  suggestion  is 
offered,  however,  and  strongly  urged,  that  all  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  the  lands  owned  by 
the  State,  or  with  the  lands  of  the  State  as  they  affect  the  State 


1(34  REPORT   OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 

government's  interests,  should  be  concentrated  in  and  imposed  upon 
the  State  Land  Department.  By  such  concentration  division  of 
authority  will  be  obviated,  conflicting  policies  prevented,  prompt- 
ness of  action  secured,  and  the  maximum  of  economy  arrived  at  by 
the  utilization  of  one  organization  and  one  set  of  records. 

The  suggestion  is  also  offered  that  whatever  form  of  State 
Land  Department  may  seem  wise  to  the  Legislature,  no  obstacle 
should  be  placed  in  the  way  of  a  systematic  segregation  of  the  work 
of  the  Department  into  logical  divisions,  each  to  be  directly  pre- 
sided over  by  a  Commissioner,  or  otherwise  designated  official. 
The  importance  of  this  will  be  readily  recognized  when  consideration 
is  given  to  the  different  activities  of  the  Department,  both  in  the 
field  and  in  the  office,  as  here  reported. 

In  order  that  all  possible  information  may  be  afforded,  re- 
specting the  operation  of  the  Commission,  there  will  be  found  sub- 
joined a  financial  statement  showing  the  Commission's  expendi- 
tures (Table  XX,  page  166),  and  a  statement  of  the  revenues  de- 
rived from  the  State  lands  (Table  XIX,  page  165). 

FEES. 

The  Commission,  at  the  present  time,  charges  only  two  fees — 
$1  for  applications  for  leases  and  $2.50  for  applications  for  transfers 
of  leases  or  permits.  From  this  source,  as  will  be  noted  in  the  state- 
ment of  receipts,  $668  has  been  realized.  A  schedule  of  Land 
Department  fees  should  be  fixed  by  law,  and  provision  made  for  its 
disposition. 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


165 


RECEIPTS    FROM    STATE    LANDS 
February  14,  1912— Nov.   30,  1915 

TABLE   XIX. 


• 

^ 

^         ^ 

? 

«-l 

tf 

o 

cr            £ 

1 

a 

a> 

CO 

CO 

o 

H' 

05 

H* 

H^ 

o 

o 

S3 

i_i 

^^ 

l_l 

CO 

i-' 

'O 

to 

CO 

l-l 

b^ 

)(^ 

)(^ 

o 

School  Lands:  i 

Permits    i  11,444.53  |       28,121.17 


Leases     

S'ale    of    gravel 

In    National    forests. 


Total 


43.20  i  5,412.28 

I  216.64 

44,463.90  !       36,226.65 


55,951.63 


4,239.80 
818.68 


69,976.74       5.058.48 


43,805.50 

6,274.16 

216.64 

80,690.55 


130,986.85 


University    lands : 

Permits    

Leases 

Timber  Sale  No,  1 
Timber  &alp  No.   2 

Trespass    

Cordwood    


1,073.41 

20.00 

32,500.00 


12.50 


69.80 

6,500.00 

20,000.00 

1,210.88 


Total      .  . 
Fees: 
Application, 

leases     .... 
Application, 

leand  leases    .... 
Assignment,      school 

leases      

Assignment,     school 

permits      

Assignment         university 
land    permits     


school    land 
university 
land 
land 


333.07 


33,605.91  i  27,780.68 


29.00 


Total 


Carey    Act : 

Application  deposit 


29.00 


283.00 
1.00 
5.00 

205.00 
15.00 


509.00 


Total    , 
Grand   totals 


56,313.70 


104,091.65 


70.00 

10.00 

45.00 

5.00 

130.00 


1,476.28 

20.00 

39,000.00 

20,000.00 

1,210.88 

12.50 


61,719.66 


382.00 
1.00 

15,00 
250.00 

20.00 


.00 


250.00 


250.00 


250.00 


250.00 


33,219.16  I     193,624.51 


130,986.85 


61,719.66 


668.00 


668.00 


193,624.51 


Not  received,  estimated  at  $40,060.00. 


166 


REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION 


EXPENDITURES    IN    CONNECTION    WITH    SELECTION,    WITHDRAWAL 
AND    ADMINISTRATION    OF    STATE    LANDS 

TABLE  XX. 


«-( 

1^ 

en 

0 

(3 

(D 

B 

<D 

CO 

05 

P 

^ 

to 

CO 

^^ 

ts3 

• 

9 

General   Fund — Chapter    3,  Laws  1913 

S'alaries    of     Commissioners     

General   expense: 

Salary    chief    clerk    

Clerks'     salaries,    maps,    plats,    etc 

Printing  and  stationery    

Postage     

Telephone  and  Telegraph 

Express    and    freight     

Sundry     supplies 

Miscellaneous      

Traveling  expense . 

Transportation,      railroad      fare,      au- 
tomobile,   etc 

Board,   lodging,   supplies,    etc    .... 

Miscellaneous     

Gross    expense     

Credit:      Refunds    on   railroad      scrip 

books,    etc    

Net  expense,  General  Fund    

University   Fund — Sec.    4,    Chapter    3 
Laws    1913. 

Scaling    and    marking    

Fire     protection     

Traveling . 

Advertising 

Miscellaneous      

Total 

Disbursements  by   Governor — Chapter 

79,   Laws   of   1912. 
Land    selections:    Filing    fees    

Advertising     

Withdrawals :    Advertising    

Total     


624.99 

9,000.00 

9,000.00 

3,750.00  ' 

22,374.99 

12.5.00 

1,975.00 

2,400.00  i 

1,000.00  1 

5.500.00 

49.10 

3,554.97 

6,791.42  i 

1,859.20 

12,254.69 

125.20 

832.68 

565.06  i 

203.11 

1,726.05 

250.39 

301.29  i 

100.00 

651.68 

6.74 

58.46 

96.13  \ 

57.46 

218.79 

4.40 

11.78  1 

1.26 

17.44 

14.90 

14.90 

169.91 

239.27  i 

42.19 

451.37 

4,670.18 

3,545.86 

1,136.48 

9,352.52 

31.86 

1,293.00 

1,143.40  1 

253.80 

2,722.06 

78.05 

96.40 

1.25 

175.70 

962.89 

21,901.94 

24,190.61  i 

8,404.75 

55,460.19 

73.04 

120.13 

40.05 

233.22 

962.89 

21.828.90 

24.070.48 

8.364.70 

55,?,^fiq7. 

1,183.53  1 

626.89 

1.810.42 

215.59  ; 

20.00 

235.59 

97.05  j 

28.65 

125.70 

30.12  ! 

12.25 

42.37 

3.30 : 

4.65 

7.9i 

l,525.5d' 

692.44 

2,222.03 

3,231.00 

723.00 

104.00 

4.058.00 

157.50 

298.07  1 

7.50 

463.07 

37.12 

106.25  1 

91.82 

235.19. 

' 

S,4SS.62 

1,1^7.32 

20332 

4,756.26 

REPORT  OF  THE  STATE  LAND  COMMISSION  (57 


AFFIDAVIT. 


COUNTY  OF  MARICOPA,      1 
STATE  OF  ARIZONA.  \ 

Before  me,  Catherine  Grove,  a  notary  public  in  and  for  Mari- 
copa county,  State  of  Arizona,  on  this  1st  day  of  December,  1914, 
personally  appeared  Mulford  Winsor.  chairman,  Cy  Byrne,  secre- 
tary, and  Wm.  A.  Moody,  member  of  the  State  Land  Commission 
of  Arizona,  known  to  me  to  be  the  persons  who  signed  their  names 
to  the  annexed  ''Report  of  the  State  Land  Commission  of  Arizona", 
and  each  for  himself  and  not  one  for  the  other,  swore  that  he  was 
familiar  with  the  contents  of  the  said  report  and  believed  the  state- 
ments and  allegations  therein  contained  to  be  true,  to  the  best  of 
his  knowledge  and  belief. 
•  (Signed)     CATHERINE  GROVE, 

Notary  Public. 
(Seal) 
My  commission  expires  January  13,  1918. 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 

CDMflflS733M 


98e>18 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


STATE 
IIBRARY. 


